 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:17:07 -0000, Gilles Tran
<gil### [at] agroparistech fr> did spake, saying:
> de
> news: op.t7s2zm10c3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>
>> But do the people who don't use the solver or VBA have the option of
>> removing it from their installation? What features are deemed integral
>> to
>> the programme? We've chastised Andy for not knowing about Styles in
>> Word,
>> but how many home users do? Yet there the code sits taking up space,
>> poised for use.
>
> My point is only that one cannot claim that some features are useless
> when they are actually used intensively by parts of the user base.
They're useless for a given value of uselessness, do I add this feature in
that's used by 25% of our customer base as an installed feature or as an
optional component? If it's plonked in as a base feature then 75% of
customers will have it sitting there taking up space and never being used.
> Is MS supposed to make styles optional because Andy couldn't figure them
> out? User
> requirements are real.
I'm using Firefox at times, I've added in an ad-blocker, flash blocker and
session manager, plus a few other things that come with Opera as standard.
Do I think Opera should make these optional - no because they integrate
with the browser so well and the executable + main library stands at under
3.2Kb. Now if it made Opera big and fat they'd yes they should be optional.
> Lots of people who are serious about using a word
> processor need styles and collaboration tools. Lots of people who are
> serious about using spreadsheets need automation. Lots of people who work
> with presentation software need to embed video.
Yes and am I saying those options shouldn't be there? No I'm not what I'm
asking is does the program dynamically load in the "embed video" library
when such an action is attempted or is it just loaded on principle?
> There's no denying that there's a bloat issue with many major
> applications.
> Word 2003 had 31 toolbars and 1500 commands... Even Adobe plans a
> thorough
> cleanup of the Photoshop interface.
But that's not bloat unless there's a duplication of actions; unless
you're counting memory usage to display all the toolbars and menus.
> Still the solution is not to assume that
> "most users" are a bunch of dummies who don't need better than what was
> available in 1990. And about home users, my 75-year-old dad may not use
> styles, but he still enjoys Word's ability to work flawlessly with
> bilingual
> documents with parts written in different character sets. Is he an
> exception? I don't think so.
No and I'm not saying users are dummies (ignorant perhaps), what is being
said is that the core functionality of the program is being expanded at
the expense of memory when the majority of users may not be using the
majority of the functions.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Do I think Opera should make these optional - no because they
> integrate with the browser so well and the executable + main library
> stands at under 3.2Kb. Now if it made Opera big and fat they'd yes they
> should be optional.
3.2Kb? Hello world is bigger than that on my machine... Nice
optimization work the Opera guys did, huh :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
47d56173$1@news.povray.org...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:25:45 +0100, Gilles Tran wrote:
> Well, not for me they're not. Not for most of the people I work with -
> and I work in an office that consists of both technical and non-technical
> people. Most of my closest coworkers are not technical, but quite a few
> are. It used to be the other way around - I almost never dealt with the
> non-technical people, being an IT person myself.
Well I'm in the feed industry, not an IT person and not knowing IT people
(except to hire them...). I guess that folks who feed cows and pigs are
special then ;) Not really kidding: it's an industry based on operational
research, so crunching numbers is a normal way of life. Lots of these people
actually live within Excel. Right now, we got a bunch of them downstairs
being lectured about the joys of linear programming (and linear programming
modelisation) and exporting data to and from MS Office and automating the
whole processes. And they sure do know what they need.
> applications for the first Windows platform. Everyone "had to have" the
> Windows environment for some reason, and WordPerfect and Lotus were late
> to the game *because* Microsoft didn't release the APIs externally (and
> changed some of them between beta and RTM, just to *really* fsck-up their
> competition).
> This is not conjecture on my part - this is well-documented fact.
And it doesn't change the fact that Lotus had become obsolete and that Excel
was a superior product with features that people had been expecting (and not
getting) from Lotus for a while. Here, Excel was the reason we switched
gradually to Windows, not the other way round. It's not like Windows was
actually useful for anything else back then. (I did play tic-tac-toe with
Windows 1 though).
> department. I've seen accounting spreadsheets that would make most
> people's heads hurt for days on end.
Oh I've seen that too, no arguing necessary. And the Comic Sans
presentations too.
G.
--
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:53:31 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:
>> Do I think Opera should make these optional - no because they integrate
>> with the browser so well and the executable + main library stands at
>> under 3.2Kb. Now if it made Opera big and fat they'd yes they should be
>> optional.
>
> 3.2Kb? Hello world is bigger than that on my machine... Nice
> optimization work the Opera guys did, huh :)
Opera.exe 79,360 bytes
Opera.dll 3,276,288 bytes
K's M's what the difference... a magnitude of about 1000.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news: op.t7s7rzxyc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> No and I'm not saying users are dummies (ignorant perhaps), what is being
> said is that the core functionality of the program is being expanded at
> the expense of memory when the majority of users may not be using the
> majority of the functions.
The Excel solver is optional. And it's kind of annoying when you have to
send a file to someone assuming it's installed when it's not... Ditto for
any application that require plugins. Modular applications are nice but when
one has to share documents (which is the norm in many working environments)
it can be problematic. Also, the process itself of finding, adding and
removing modules adds to the complexity (where's that friggin video library)
and when software operation becomes dependent on the compatibility between
modules and the main application it can cause serious issues. Everyone would
like to have lean and clean software with all the features that we
(personally) need immediately available (and only those), but in the real
world things works differently, particularly when other people - colleagues,
customers - are involved.
G.
--
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:03:03 +0100, Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 47d56173$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:25:45 +0100, Gilles Tran wrote:
>
>> Well, not for me they're not. Not for most of the people I work with -
>> and I work in an office that consists of both technical and
>> non-technical people. Most of my closest coworkers are not technical,
>> but quite a few are. It used to be the other way around - I almost
>> never dealt with the non-technical people, being an IT person myself.
>
> Well I'm in the feed industry, not an IT person and not knowing IT
> people (except to hire them...). I guess that folks who feed cows and
> pigs are special then ;) Not really kidding: it's an industry based on
> operational research, so crunching numbers is a normal way of life. Lots
> of these people actually live within Excel. Right now, we got a bunch of
> them downstairs being lectured about the joys of linear programming (and
> linear programming modelisation) and exporting data to and from MS
> Office and automating the whole processes. And they sure do know what
> they need.
My first job out of college was in the manufacturing industry (as one of
the IT guys) - lots of engineering work, lots of finance/inventory
control work. Different needs for different folks.
>> applications for the first Windows platform. Everyone "had to have"
>> the Windows environment for some reason, and WordPerfect and Lotus were
>> late to the game *because* Microsoft didn't release the APIs externally
>> (and changed some of them between beta and RTM, just to *really*
>> fsck-up their competition).
>> This is not conjecture on my part - this is well-documented fact.
>
> And it doesn't change the fact that Lotus had become obsolete and that
> Excel was a superior product with features that people had been
> expecting (and not getting) from Lotus for a while. Here, Excel was the
> reason we switched gradually to Windows, not the other way round. It's
> not like Windows was actually useful for anything else back then. (I did
> play tic-tac-toe with Windows 1 though).
Maybe for you, but I am fairly certain that it met the needs for a
significant portion of the user base. But it wasn't "new", it wasn't
"shiny", and it didn't run on Windows. And then when it did, it sucked
because the UI didn't work right (ie, consistently with other Windows
programs).
If the developers at Lotus hadn't had to screw around with broken/
incomplete API documentation and try to get the UI working properly, they
might've been able to add a few new features that were being requested.
But from having sold Lotus 1-2-3 (and books on it) as well as the
Microsoft products (also used to work in software sales once upon a
time), I do know what people were generally buying in the late 80's and
the reasons they were buying it. It was kinda my job. ;-)
>> department. I've seen accounting spreadsheets that would make most
>> people's heads hurt for days on end.
>
> Oh I've seen that too, no arguing necessary. And the Comic Sans
> presentations too.
Yeah. The latter drive me nuts. Those types of presentations also tend
to be fairly "busy" - too much going on on the screen - "hey look, I can
do stupid animations on the screen!" ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10 Mar 2008 11:29:07 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:18:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Isn't that how you get cheap programmes, though? If you reuse code and
>> generic solutions combined with not testing fully the production costs
>> are kept low (ish).
>
>Well, yes, code reuse is an important aspect of development today. But
>there's nothing that says that reusable code must be sloppy or non-
>optimised. :-)
>
>Jim
As you say :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:37:47 -0000, Gilles Tran
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> did spake, saying:
> de
> news: op.t7s7rzxyc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>
>> No and I'm not saying users are dummies (ignorant perhaps), what is
>> being
>> said is that the core functionality of the program is being expanded at
>> the expense of memory when the majority of users may not be using the
>> majority of the functions.
>
> The Excel solver is optional. And it's kind of annoying when you have to
> send a file to someone assuming it's installed when it's not... Ditto for
> any application that require plugins. Modular applications are nice but
> when
> one has to share documents (which is the norm in many working
> environments)
> it can be problematic. Also, the process itself of finding, adding and
> removing modules adds to the complexity (where's that friggin video
> library)
> and when software operation becomes dependent on the compatibility
> between
> modules and the main application it can cause serious issues.
I agree locating third-party plugins is annoying and tiresome, except
we're not talking about a third-party here; the program should know where
it has put its own stuff. If I send you a spreadsheet that uses ACCRINT
Excel should know that requires the Anayls32.xll and Funcres.xla and just
load them up as needed.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Set it to something like "download but ask me before installing". Then
> whenever you're ready to reboot, you install them and reboot.
Or, if you get caught, just go into the services panel and stop the
service, but leave it set to automatic. Then when you reboot, it comes back.
Note that if you have it set to "load but don't install", it'll even
prompt you to install when you turn off the machine, so you don't even
take any of your own time.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> And when the automated updates screw the machine up, the user is
> basically screwed.
That's what System Restore is for. Which Linux doesn't have, to my
chagrin. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
