 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There appears to be someone at MS whose job is to dream up ways to get
between the user and his/her data.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 31 lines --]
> The coolest Microsoft application ever, IMNSHO, ***was*** Microsoft Photo
> Editor. The HDD died on the WinXP laptop I use in my place of employment. With
> the new HDD came the latest suite of Office products. To my chagrin, Microsoft
> Photo Editor is gone and replaced by Microsoft Office Picture Manager. It is
> terrible.
Seriously, it just seems like common trend inside Microsoft: First develop
a software which is between acceptable and actually pretty good, and then
develop new versions of that software which have changes for and only for
the sake of change, at the cost of usability.
I have never understood that. MS has its own program and GUI design
documents which are not half-bad, but they don't seem to follow them at
all. It seems that their rule number one is "we *must* make the new
version look&feel different, no matter what the cost". It seems unthinkable
to them that they would release a new version which actually looks and
feels the *same* as the old version, but which has bug fixes and enhanced
features.
Windows Media Player is a prime example of this. Compare all versions
of it from version 6 to the current one. The newer the version, the more
bloated, the harder and more unintuitive to use, and the more horrible
they get with each version. If it was just the eyecandy then it would be
ok (after all, most media players are skinnable, so it's kind of ok).
But it's not only that. They must change how it works and how it is used.
Old = bad, change = good. It doesn't matter if it changes to less usable
and less intuitive, as long as it changes.
I must admit I haven't followed the details between the different
versions of MacOS X, but I have the feeling that while they have implemented
some changes to the UI and functionalities, they have tried to keep it
easy and intuitive to use. Eye-candy yes, but not at the cost of usability.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Seriously, it just seems like common trend inside Microsoft: First develop
> a software which is between acceptable and actually pretty good, and then
> develop new versions of that software which have changes for and only for
> the sake of change, at the cost of usability.
>
> I have never understood that.
It's quite simple. You've got to make it look different so everybody
will look at it and immediately go "oh, hey, COOL! It's NEW!"
Usability? What's that then?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> There appears to be someone at MS whose job is to dream up ways to get
> between the user and his/her data.
Last week IE7 stopped working correctly on this computer.
It now crashes on many, many pages, and exits with a bug report.
I've done lots of things trying to get it working again,
removed all plug-ins, removed services, even uninstalled it
and reinstalled it. Nothing seems to fix it.
I did come across this article about developers unhappy with IE7.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9050979&intsrc=hm_list
At least there's Firefox.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> It's quite simple. You've got to make it look different so everybody
> will look at it and immediately go "oh, hey, COOL! It's NEW!"
IMO it would be much better if it was advertised like: "Has the same
user interface so you don't have to re-learn using the program, but
this new version is much faster, lighter and has tons of useful new
features."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> It's quite simple. You've got to make it look different so everybody
>> will look at it and immediately go "oh, hey, COOL! It's NEW!"
>
> IMO it would be much better if it was advertised like: "Has the same
> user interface so you don't have to re-learn using the program, but
> this new version is much faster, lighter and has tons of useful new
> features."
For once, you and I are in agreement...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:24:51 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
...and now over to Doug for the weather. It's a brisk 32 degrees here in hell...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> ...and now over to Doug for the weather. It's a brisk 32 degrees here in hell...
Oh come on, it's not *that* improbable. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Kyle wrote:
>
> > ...and now over to Doug for the weather. It's a brisk 32 degrees here in hell...
>
> Oh come on, it's not *that* improbable. :-P
>
No, THIS improbable:
.... and experts fear that a continuing drop in temperature could cause ice to
form on the pigs' wings...
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:24:51 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> ...and now over to Doug for the weather. It's a brisk 32 degrees here in hell...
>
Took me a while to realize you were talking in Fahrenheit :-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
