nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I also have to say part of the success for the Nintendo brand again is 
> the same reason for its demise during 2 generations:  its loyal fans 
> during the NES and SNES grew older during the N64 and GC, had to get a 
> work, house, marriage and are now back to gaming, thanks to their kids. 

  I have heard that many people complained about the N64 and GC controllers,
and that *might* be at least partially responsible for the lesser popularity
of those two consoles. If you look at those controllers, they look quite
painful to use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:N64_controller.jpg

  Ok, it might be usable for the D-pad, but when you need to switch to the
analog stick, it looks really awkward. The D-pad and the analog stick seem
to basically be mutually exclusive: Either use one or the other, but not
both at the same time, or even in quick succession. Also the location of
the analog stick seems awkward.

  Sony's DualShock controller, while maybe slightly ascetic compared to
the more modern ergonomic versions of that controller type, has more the
right idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DualShock.jpg

  It's easy to switch between the D-pad and the analog stick by simply
moving your thumb from one to the other. And while having *two* such sticks
might seem rather self-evident and obvious nowadays, it was actually quite
an ingenuous idea which helped the playability of many, many games.

  Nintendo tried to copy the idea for their GameCube controller, but did
it horribly wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NGC_Gamecube.jpg

  The D-pad is positioned in a really awkward place, and it's hard to use.
Likewise for the analog stick on the right. Also the X and Y buttons are
positioned awkwardly.

  I suppose Nintendo learned its lesson and instead of trying to copy
others' controller designs, they created their own for the Wii. It seems
to have been a success.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I also have to say part of the success for the Nintendo brand again is 
>> the same reason for its demise during 2 generations:  its loyal fans 
>> during the NES and SNES grew older during the N64 and GC, had to get a 
>> work, house, marriage and are now back to gaming, thanks to their kids. 
> 
>   I have heard that many people complained about the N64 and GC controllers,
> and that *might* be at least partially responsible for the lesser popularity
> of those two consoles. If you look at those controllers, they look quite
> painful to use:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:N64_controller.jpg

Low sales because of controller?!  First time I hear it.

I had a N64 from day 1.  The controller was very comfortable.  The 
analog stick is also a lot more precise than both analogs from the 
dual-shock.  I heard people saying the same from GC, but then, those are 
Nintendoids without hope.

What really spell FAIL to me was the too few games.  That I can see 
hurting sales of the platform overall.

>   I suppose Nintendo learned its lesson and instead of trying to copy
> others' controller designs, they created their own for the Wii. It seems
> to have been a success.

Hmm, it seems you got it wrong:  Nintendo is a trend setter, not the 
contrary.  They were the ones to come up with the d-pad, 4 buttons, 
shoulder buttons, analog stick and, now, motion sensing controller.  The 
others follow suit.  That said, I wish their games had evolved too.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >   I suppose Nintendo learned its lesson and instead of trying to copy
> > others' controller designs, they created their own for the Wii. It seems
> > to have been a success.

> Hmm, it seems you got it wrong:  Nintendo is a trend setter, not the 
> contrary.  They were the ones to come up with the d-pad, 4 buttons, 
> shoulder buttons, analog stick and, now, motion sensing controller.  The 
> others follow suit.  That said, I wish their games had evolved too.

  I was talking about the GameCube controller, which was quite clearly
trying to copy the idea from the DualShock controller.

  Speaking of controllers, I own this one (for the PC):
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/gaming/pc_gaming/gamepads/devices/264&cl=US,EN

  It's the most comfortable controller I have ever tried. It's also sturdy,
balanced and ergonomic. It feels quite good for games designed to be played
with a game controller.

  (Its only drawback is that it uses some special force feedback technology,
as it AFAIK has *two* motors inside, and there seems to often be compatiblity
issues with many games, meaning that force feedback just doesn't work with
many games no matter what you try to do. Well, it's only a minor issue.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> So, they can do limited function, single task stuff well.. like DOS. lol
> 
> No, they can do something well if the requirements are strict enough.
> 
> MS makes their software good enough for the people who have to use it. 
> That's one of the reasons the perception of Visual Studio is so much 
> better than the perception of Windows in general... developers have 
> higher standards than the average user, so MS makes a better product for 
> them.
> 
Well, true enough. Though, a note one VS.. One feature it has that no 
other editor suite for Windows really supports (or as extensively), is 
"design time", as in edit objects, in place. There is a reason for this. 
The code needed to "react to" design mode flags in a window or other 
object is well documented. The means by which to "turn on" design mode 
for a window... I spent 2 years looking for code, everyplace from their 
sites, to the official API manuals you can buy, to just about every 
other place you can think of. Its not documented in any discoverable sense.

Having a product that does something that no one else's does, because 
you intentionally prevent anyone else from doing it the same way, isn't 
a selling point, as far as I am concerned. That said, VS, on my install, 
had more than a few annoyances, not the least being that all its 
frakking documentation assumed that you where going to code stuff in 
either C++/C# or in VB, and that if you where using VB, you didn't need 
either headers for the API flags, at all, never mind documentation on 
them. And, it was hardly bugless...

But, yeah. Things that perform one, clear, and specific task, they do 
well with, sort of, except for the things they leave out, due to you not 
needing them, from their view, or don't work as expected, or don't work 
at all. How many versions of the XBox 360 cooling thing they go through 
before figuring out to a) leave the fans on until it cooled off, and b) 
it got hot enough to melt the solder points on the GPU? 3-4 I think.. 
But, otherwise, great machine. lol Just hope a car with the their tech 
in it doesn't have a similar issue. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Which users wanted their PCs to get hacked just by being connected to 
> the Internet? Who wanted a word processor that constantly crashes? Which 
> people thought it was funny if a power cut results in permanent data 
> loss and possible an unusable PC?
> 

Almost like the OneTouch 3. Standby (or shut down drives to save power) 
sometimes leaves the drive *unable* to power up again and access files. 
You have to unplug it, then plug it back in again (meaning the power 
cord), then wait for it to "unmangle" the 1-2 files that where in an 
open/unsaved state before it went into standby. Then there is its backup 
software. V2 backed up "everything". V3... only backs up documents, 
archives and executables, which doesn't include Firefox bookmarks, 
settings files, some save games, and a whole host of other things. So, 
if you had to restore, half your applications wouldn't work, since the 
"critical" files you actually need from them are all missing in the 
backup...

Yeah. Some companies seem to have their own internal logic, with respect 
to what they "define" as "user experience"... Oddly, it never seems to 
quite match my definition. :p


-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The code needed to "react to" design mode flags in a window or other 
> object is well documented. The means by which to "turn on" design mode 
> for a window... 

I don't understand what you mean. The code to implement visual studio isn't 
documented? No, of course not.

What is it you think isn't documented? I think you think things work 
differently than they do. There's no "design mode" for a window. The VS IDE 
is using the design-mode properties to draw the widgets into the window.

It's like complaining that Firefox renders standard HTML, but doesn't 
document the HTML you need to edit a web page.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Not as right as Nintendo, though, as Wii is selling almost as much as
> Xbox 360 and PS3 combined...

Yes, to a completely different group of people.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

>> OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged 
>> about the unused desktop icons? 
> 
> You get offered once, and you click the box that says "stop asking."  
> It's only nagging if you can't read.

So why does it ask me once a month?

>> Who was it that thinks getting their PC infected with malware was a 
>> good idea?
> 
> Bugs aren't designed in.

Depends on what you think a "bug" is.

Windows is fundamentally based on the concept that only one person is 
using the PC. This is very much "designed in". They're trying to change 
that now to make the thing actually secure, but it's hard to alter one 
of the fundamental design assumptions of a large system without 
completely redesigning it.

> People think getting some small number infected with malware is 
> preferable to spending 30x as much for the software.

And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for a 
mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But apparently 
that's just me...

When Linux goes wrong, it's annoying. But given that I spent £0 on it, 
you can just say "ah well, you get what you pay for". But when you pay 
vast amounts of money for something, you expect it to work.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged 
>>> about the unused desktop icons? 
>>
>> You get offered once, and you click the box that says "stop asking."  

>> It's only nagging if you can't read.
> 
> So why does it ask me once a month?

I can only assume it's because you didn't turn it off. I got asked exactl
y once.

> Windows is fundamentally based on the concept that only one person is 
> using the PC.

Not really.  Maybe 15 years ago that was true, but not now.

>> People think getting some small number infected with malware is 
>> preferable to spending 30x as much for the software.
> 
> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for a
 
> mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But apparently
 
> that's just me...

I dunno. Why are you getting virus infections? I've run for decades with 
no 
virus protection and I don't have problems. Actually, I've seen exactly o
ne 
  or maybe two machines with a virus on it in my career.  Heck, I've seen
 
more viruses on 8-bit machines than I've seen on Windows.

> When Linux goes wrong, it's annoying. But given that I spent £0 on
 it, 

No, you didn't pay $0 for it. You simply didn't pay *cash* for it. Most o
f 
the companies I worked for payed hundreds of thousands of dollars a year 
to 
the people keeping the Linux systems running.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for a 
> mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But apparently 
> that's just me...

It's just you who thinks that a desktop OS needs to have zero bugs to "work 
properly".  FOr controlling a plane of nuclear reactor, sure, but for a 
desktop OS? No way - nobody would be willing to pay for it.

Post a reply to this message

>>   Not as right as Nintendo, though, as Wii is selling almost as much as
>> Xbox 360 and PS3 combined...
> 
> Yes, to a completely different group of people.

That's the genius of it, see?

Post a reply to this message

>> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for 
>> a mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But 
>> apparently that's just me...
> 
> It's just you who thinks that a desktop OS needs to have zero bugs to 
> "work properly".  FOr controlling a plane of nuclear reactor, sure, but 
> for a desktop OS? No way - nobody would be willing to pay for it.

Why does everybody think it's expensive to design and test software 
properly? There's plenty of non-M$ software which works reliably enough 
to not cause a problem. (And let's face it, M$ isn't exactly short of 
cash...)

Post a reply to this message

>>>> OK. So remind me... who is it that wanted to be constantly nagged 
>>>> about the unused desktop icons? 
>>>
>>> You get offered once, and you click the box that says "stop asking."  
>>> It's only nagging if you can't read.
>>
>> So why does it ask me once a month?
> 
> I can only assume it's because you didn't turn it off. I got asked 
> exactly once.

On every PC I set up at work, it asks once, waits 30 seconds, asks 
again, and then goes away for a while. I don't know if it comes back 
after a month; I'm usually only there for the initial setup. But my PC 
had some does. (Interestingly, Vista seems to have fixed this bug...)

>> Windows is fundamentally based on the concept that only one person is 
>> using the PC.
> 
> Not really.  Maybe 15 years ago that was true, but not now.

Sure, they're slowly changing it. But it still does stuff like (for 
example) setting the first user as administrator so you can constantly 
run your PC in admin mode. But hey, piles and piles of old software 
fails to work unless you do this.

(To some extent I have sympathy with M$ here; before networks existed, 
"security" was a non-issue. If you want your computer to be secure, put 
it in a locked room. So the original insecure designs were appropriate. 
But now M$ can't really break backwards compatibility too horribly, 
which does somewhat limit what they can do with security - even if it is 
debatable how much they actually care...)

>>> People think getting some small number infected with malware is 
>>> preferable to spending 30x as much for the software.
>>
>> And I think that if I have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for 
>> a mere operating system, it should at least work properly. But 
>> apparently that's just me...
> 
> I dunno. Why are you getting virus infections?

I'm not, but other people certainly are.

> Heck, I've seen more viruses on 8-bit machines than I've seen on Windows.

Interestingly, I've never seen a virus on an 8-bit machine. But then, 
I've seen few on Windows machines, to be honest. (In particular, I've 
never seen any of the Word macro viruses rumoured to exist.)

>> When Linux goes wrong, it's annoying. But given that I spent £0 on it, 
> 
> No, you didn't pay $0 for it. You simply didn't pay *cash* for it. Most 
> of the companies I worked for payed hundreds of thousands of dollars a 
> year to the people keeping the Linux systems running.

Sure, if you want to use it for serious work, it's going to cost you 
something. It always does. My actual *point* is that when something 
cheap breaks, it's annoying, but when something astronomically expensive 
breaks... it makes me very frustrated, to say the least.

Post a reply to this message

> Why does everybody think it's expensive to design and test software 
> properly?

Umm, because if MS spent another 6 months designing certain parts of Windows 
better and testing it more thoroughly, that would cost 6 months of salaries 
(plus all the other costs to run those departments) and also 6 months of 
lost sales.  In short, they have to decide when to release the product for 
maximum profit, and it will always be before they've fixed all bugs.

> There's plenty of non-M$ software which works reliably enough to not cause 
> a problem.

Sure, there's also apples that taste different to pears.

> (And let's face it, M$ isn't exactly short of cash...)

Did you ever stop to think that if they designed and tested more thoroughly 
they might have *less* cash?  I'm sure MS has already stopped and though 
about exactly this, and TBH I think they are in a much better position to 
decide how much (re)design and testing to do than you are.

Post a reply to this message

>> Why does everybody think it's expensive to design and test software 
>> properly?
> 
> Umm, because if MS spent another 6 months designing certain parts of 
> Windows better and testing it more thoroughly, that would cost 6 months 
> of salaries (plus all the other costs to run those departments) and also 
> 6 months of lost sales.  In short, they have to decide when to release 
> the product for maximum profit, and it will always be before they've 
> fixed all bugs.

Well, sure, it's almost impossible to make completely bug-free software. 
You could sit forever removing bugs, but as you say, eventually you have 
to release a product.

My problem is this: M$ doesn't even bother *trying* to produce 
high-quality software. They just release the most bug-ridden lump of 
junk they think they can possibly get away with. Their whole business 
model is about chucking out software as cheaply as possible, and then 
charging vast sums of money for it as if it were some premium-grade product.

I dislike people charging a fortune for crap. I have no problem with 
people charging lots of money for a product that's actually *good*, but 
I resent being charged a fortune for crap. (Hell, I don't even mind so 
much when cheap stuff breaks - it was cheap, after all...)

>> There's plenty of non-M$ software which works reliably enough to not 
>> cause a problem.
> 
> Sure, there's also apples that taste different to pears.

Yeah, that's true. I mean, it's not like OpenOffice Writer is anything 
like Microsoft Word. Not like they do the exact same function and even 
read the precise same file format. And hey, what Writer does it way 
easier, because it runs on multiple platforms, not just one, right?

> Did you ever stop to think that if they designed and tested more 
> thoroughly they might have *less* cash?  I'm sure MS has already stopped 
> and though about exactly this, and TBH I think they are in a much better 
> position to decide how much (re)design and testing to do than you are.

Except that they're not interested in how to make a better product. 
They're interested in how to screw the customer out of more money for 
the least possible effort. They're parasites.

As if that wasn't bad enough, then they try to claim that they're these 
visionary leaders of innovation and technical advancement, when they 
can't even produce a word processor that works properly - something that 
existed decades ago...

Post a reply to this message

> My problem is this: M$ doesn't even bother *trying* to produce 
> high-quality software.

Do you have any evidence at all for that statement, or are you still making 
things up as you go along?

Read through this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista

You can read through the development of XP too if you like, the link is at 
the bottom.

That certainly doesn't sound to me like a company that isn't even bothering 
to try and produce high quality software.  They released Vista beta almost 
18 months before it went on the shelves, and continuously made changes based 
on feedback.  Tell me, what would you do differently given that you are 
bashing MS so much over their design methods?  Spend 3 years in the beta 
phase?  Gee, the Finance Director of MS is going to love you...

> Yeah, that's true. I mean, it's not like OpenOffice Writer is anything 
> like Microsoft Word.

True, MS Word is a very profitable product.

> Except that they're not interested in how to make a better product.

Of course they are, otherwise nobody would buy the next version of Windows 
and they would go bankrupt.  Note that what you consider "better" is not 
necessarily the same as what everyone else in the world would consider 
"better", MS has to cater for a huge number of very different people, and 
they need to make the most number of people want to buy it.  This doesn't 
necessarily mean that you or I will find it "better" personally, but it is 
the best thing for MS to do.

> They're interested in how to screw the customer out of more money for the 
> least possible effort.

Err, yeh, that's the goal of *all* companies.  If you start making decisions 
against maximising profit (eg spending another 2 years testing software 
rather than releasing) you are likely to get fired and replaced by the 
shareholders.  Live with it, it's how business works in the real world.

> As if that wasn't bad enough, then they try to claim that they're these 
> visionary leaders of innovation and technical advancement, when they can't 
> even produce a word processor that works properly - something that existed 
> decades ago...

Yeh I guess that's why nearly everyone I know, as well as switching from IE 
to FF, also switched from MS Word to OpenOffice Writer... not.

I think it's just you that can't get Word to work, even my mum can use it 
fine :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> My problem is this: M$ doesn't even bother *trying* to produce 
>> high-quality software.
> 
> Do you have any evidence at all for that statement, or are you still 
> making things up as you go along?

How about the fact that most other software companies manage to produce 
software of a higher quality than Microsoft, and yet M$ have all the 
best resources? Does that sound to you like a company that cares?

>> Yeah, that's true. I mean, it's not like OpenOffice Writer is anything 
>> like Microsoft Word.
> 
> True, MS Word is a very profitable product.

Indeed. Harder to make a profit from something you give away for free. 
(Though not impossible...)

>> Except that they're not interested in how to make a better product.
> 
> Of course they are, otherwise nobody would buy the next version of 
> Windows and they would go bankrupt.

They don't need to make a better product. They just need to make a 
product which is *perceived* to be better. Huge difference.

(In fairness to M$... Excel works. But they have to somehow make you buy 
the next version. How? I wouldn't like that job...)

> Note that what you consider 
> "better" is not necessarily the same as what everyone else in the world 
> would consider "better".

That, at least, is a geniune problem. It's impossible to please 
everybody. (Well, I mean, without releasing *a lot* of similar but 
different products... which would probably just annoy everybody because 
there's too many to choose form...)

>> They're interested in how to screw the customer out of more money for 
>> the least possible effort.
> 
> Err, yeh, that's the goal of *all* companies.

Maybe I'm just delusional, but other companies seem to at least 
*attempt* to produce quality products. MS seems to focus only on how to 
trick you into spending more money, or how to force you to buy their 
products even if you don't want to.

> Live with it, it's how business works in the real world.

Other companies don't seem to need to use dirty tricks to get your 
money. (In the main, anyway.)

> Yeh I guess that's why nearly everyone I know, as well as switching from 
> IE to FF, also switched from MS Word to OpenOffice Writer... not.

And exactly how many people know that OpenOffice exists?

Exactly.

> I think it's just you that can't get Word to work, even my mum can use 
> it fine :-)

Tell you what, if you'd like to come over sometime and show our Report 
Writers how to make Word stop crashing constantly, I'm sure they'd be 
delighted...

Post a reply to this message

>> Do you have any evidence at all for that statement, or are you still 
>> making things up as you go along?
>
> How about the fact that most other software companies manage to produce 
> software of a higher quality than Microsoft,

That's not evidence that MS are not trying, that's your experiences.

Did you even read the Wikipedia link I posted?  There's plenty of evidence 
in there that they are trying pretty hard to get it right.  I mean who would 
release a dozen builds to the public while incorporating the feedback if 
they didn't care?

> That, at least, is a geniune problem. It's impossible to please everybody.

Exactly, and hence some people are going to think it's worse than before. 
And when you sell a huge number of copies, that's also a huge number of 
people that think it's worse, even if it is the optimum design for the most 
number of people to like it.

> Other companies don't seem to need to use dirty tricks to get your money. 
> (In the main, anyway.)

Stop listening to a bloke down the pub bashing MS (or the web equivalent) 
and try searching and reading for facts.  99% of what you've written about 
MS in this thread has been false, you know that's illegal right?  If it was 
my company you were saying all that stuff about in public then I'd sue you.

> And exactly how many people know that OpenOffice exists?

How many people knew that FF existed more than a few years ago?  Yet today 
lots of people use it.

> Tell you what, if you'd like to come over sometime and show our Report 
> Writers how to make Word stop crashing constantly, I'm sure they'd be 
> delighted...

Sure, post it here (plus any template files) minus any confidential 
text/images and I'm sure I won't be the only one willing to give it a look 
over.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> but when something astronomically expensive 
> breaks... it makes me very frustrated, to say the least.

As far as the end-user is concerned, Windows is free, since it comes with
 
the computer. You have to be actually interested in computers before you 
can 
figure out what Windows costs.  I don't think "astronomical" is quite the
 
right term, myself.

# Windows 7 Ultimate (Full): £229.99

No upgrade, does everything the non-server versions do. Expensive? More t
han 
most video games, yes.

Half price if you're upgrading. £150 for the "home" version.

That's the retail price, which means nobody charges more and pretty much 

everyone charges less and OEMs of course get a bulk discount, some of whi
ch 
they pass on to you.

Contrast with Illustrator for $600, Photoshop for $1000, Maya 3D for $500
0.

Ask your boss how much the software to run your lab equipment cost.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

>> but when something astronomically expensive breaks... it makes me very 
>> frustrated, to say the least.
> 
> As far as the end-user is concerned, Windows is free, since it comes 
> with the computer. You have to be actually interested in computers 
> before you can figure out what Windows costs.

Well, true. But Windows isn't the only product M$ makes...

> I don't think 
> "astronomical" is quite the right term, myself.
> 
> # Windows 7 Ultimate (Full): £229.99

...OK, that's come down pretty drastically then. Last time I looked, 
they wanted £600.

> Contrast with Illustrator for $600, Photoshop for $1000, Maya 3D for $5000.
> 
> Ask your boss how much the software to run your lab equipment cost.

Yeah, but who buys that stuff?

A better question might be how much does Office cost? (A lot of people 
seem to be quite shocked that this doesn't just "come with" a computer. 
They think of "a computer" as a thing that runs Word...)

Last time I checked, it's something like £100 for Word, £180 for Word + 
Excel, £250 for Word + Excel + PowerPoint, and steeper still if you want 
the other stuff. (Admittedly, most people just want Word, or maybe Word 
and Excel.)

In contrast, a graphic tablet and a copy of Photoshop cost my dad about 
£75 (I think), and that's *very* specialist...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> My problem is this: M$ doesn't even bother *trying* to produce 
> high-quality software. They just release the most bug-ridden lump of 
> junk they think they can possibly get away with.

You haven't really worked with buggy software, I take it.

You do realize that your view is likely colored by the fact that your job is 
to fix Windows when it breaks, right?  It's like an auto mechanic saying 
cars are all pieces of crap because they're constantly coming into the 
garage to get fixed.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> How about the fact that most other software companies manage to produce 
> software of a higher quality than Microsoft, 

Bwaaa haa haa ha... Yeah, tell me another.

> Maybe I'm just delusional, but other companies seem to at least 
> *attempt* to produce quality products. 

You really do begin to sound religious here.

> Other companies don't seem to need to use dirty tricks to get your 
> money. (In the main, anyway.)

Bwaaaa haa haa ha... How many companies have you negotiated contracts with? 
How many companies have you taken public?

How many overage fees have you paid to the bank because they cashed the 
biggest checks first before processing the deposits you put in the same day?

> And exactly how many people know that OpenOffice exists?

I don't know. Since you brought it up, why don't you tell us?

Oh, wait... You're guessing the answer that makes MS look bad, because you 
dislike MS.

> Tell you what, if you'd like to come over sometime and show our Report 
> Writers how to make Word stop crashing constantly, I'm sure they'd be 
> delighted...

Start with a fresh document and rebuild your templates, so you're not using 
already-corrupted documents.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Last time I checked, 

GIYF.  Office standard: $400 ($240 upgrade). Office home: $150 ($99 for 
real).  Small business: $450.

$450 for a full business office suite is trivial, dude. That's like one 
day's salary for someone, if that.

> In contrast, a graphic tablet and a copy of Photoshop cost my dad about
 
> £75 (I think), and that's *very* specialist...

I don't know where you got photoshop for that price, but you're comparing
 
apples and oranges. I'm looking at retail prices from the manufacturer.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>>   Not as right as Nintendo, though, as Wii is selling almost as much as
>>> Xbox 360 and PS3 combined...
>>
>> Yes, to a completely different group of people.
> 
> That's the genius of it, see?

 From a business point of view, yes.  I thought you didn't like big 
business, though? :)

What I really get annoyed at is people claiming things like, "the Wii 
will completely change video games."  Not for ME it won't.  I'm probably 
never going to buy a Wii, or its successor unless it can handle more 
hardcore video games better, and I don't want my games dumbed down for 
the Wii audience to sell more units.

There's already enough of that in games, what with things like slow 
movement, auto aiming, health regeneration, et cetera.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> As if that wasn't bad enough, then they try to claim that they're these 
> visionary leaders of innovation and technical advancement, when they 
> can't even produce a word processor that works properly - something that 
> existed decades ago...

To reference your own example and use your own terminology, almost every 
feature of OpenOffice Writer was "stolen" from MS Word.  Even the menus 
were laid out as similarly as possible.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

> A better question might be how much does Office cost? (A lot of people 
> seem to be quite shocked that this doesn't just "come with" a computer. 
> They think of "a computer" as a thing that runs Word...)

It does come with a lot of computers though, again I suspect they get a bulk 
discount on Office as well as Windows.

> Last time I checked, it's something like £100 for Word, £180 for Word + 
> Excel, £250 for Word + Excel + PowerPoint, and steeper still if you want 
> the other stuff. (Admittedly, most people just want Word, or maybe Word 
> and Excel.)

Amazon has Office 2007 Home/Student version for 67 pounds. That gets you 
Word, Excel and PowerPoint which can be installed on up to 3 machines. 
Doesn't sound bad to me!

> In contrast, a graphic tablet and a copy of Photoshop cost my dad about 
> £75 (I think), and that's *very* specialist...

That's probably PS Elements, the cut-down version of PS, presumably released 
to compete with Paint Shop Pro.

Post a reply to this message

> To reference your own example and use your own terminology, almost every 
> feature of OpenOffice Writer was "stolen" from MS Word.  Even the menus 
> were laid out as similarly as possible.

Yes, this was such a dirty trick by Open Office, take some program that 
another company had spent years and huge amounts of money to develop, and 
BLATANTLY just copy it so it looks almost identical.  Then, give it away for 
FREE!  How can they get away with that?  They're parasites trying to crush 
everyone else.

Post a reply to this message

>> That's the genius of it, see?
> 
> From a business point of view, yes.  I thought you didn't like big 
> business, though? :)

I don't like being cheated out of my money, no. But the Wii is actually 
geniunely unusual and interesting. I can see why people would buy it. 
(Although *I* won't be buying one any time soon...)

> What I really get annoyed at is people claiming things like, "the Wii 
> will completely change video games."  Not for ME it won't.

Perhaps not completely, no. But I think it opens up some interesting 
possibilities. It's just a question of how to apply it most usefully.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> A better question might be how much does Office cost? (A lot of people 
>> seem to be quite shocked that this doesn't just "come with" a 
>> computer. They think of "a computer" as a thing that runs Word...)
> 
> It does come with a lot of computers though, again I suspect they get a 
> bulk discount on Office as well as Windows.

Really? Interesting... I've seen a few PCs that come with M$ Works, but 
not Office itself.

>> Last time I checked, it's something like £100 for Word, £180 for Word 
>> + Excel, £250 for Word + Excel + PowerPoint, and steeper still if you 
>> want the other stuff. (Admittedly, most people just want Word, or 
>> maybe Word and Excel.)
> 
> Amazon has Office 2007 Home/Student version for 67 pounds. That gets you 
> Word, Excel and PowerPoint which can be installed on up to 3 machines. 
> Doesn't sound bad to me!

Sure, but only if you're a student. That's no help to anybody else.

>> In contrast, a graphic tablet and a copy of Photoshop cost my dad 
>> about £75 (I think), and that's *very* specialist...
> 
> That's probably PS Elements, the cut-down version of PS, presumably 
> released to compete with Paint Shop Pro.

I was surprised that you can even buy the hardware part for just £75, 
given how niche this product is...

Post a reply to this message

>> To reference your own example and use your own terminology, almost 
>> every feature of OpenOffice Writer was "stolen" from MS Word.  Even 
>> the menus were laid out as similarly as possible.
> 
> Yes, this was such a dirty trick by Open Office, take some program that 
> another company had spent years and huge amounts of money to develop, 
> and BLATANTLY just copy it so it looks almost identical.  Then, give it 
> away for FREE!  How can they get away with that?  They're parasites 
> trying to crush everyone else.

I would be far more sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that Open 
Office was put together in (comparatively speaking) five minutes yet 
works far better than the thing it's copying. You would expect quite the 
opposite; Microsoft has been developing and testing their Office for 
*decades*. You'd think it would be perfectly honed and polished by now. 
The fact that somebody else can knock something up in five minutes that 
works better doesn't reflect well on M$.

Still, I would prefer it if OO didn't try so hard to exactly copy M$. 
Who says the MS Office menu layout is the most logical choice? Why don't 
they come up with something better themselves? (Similar remarks apply to 
KDE and the way it attempts to copy Windows rather than come up with 
something better.) The answer, presumably, is that copying an existing 
product means people don't have to "learn" anything to use the new one - 
but then, that does start to make you wonder what the advantage of the 
new one actually is...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:18:38 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>  Amazon has Office 2007 Home/Student version for 67 pounds. That gets  
>> you Word, Excel and PowerPoint which can be installed on up to 3  
>> machines. Doesn't sound bad to me!
>
> Sure, but only if you're a student. That's no help to anybody else.

No, not just for students. Basically any non-commercial usage.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

>>>  Amazon has Office 2007 Home/Student version for 67 pounds. That gets 
>>> you Word, Excel and PowerPoint which can be installed on up to 3 
>>> machines. Doesn't sound bad to me!
>>
>> Sure, but only if you're a student. That's no help to anybody else.
> 
> No, not just for students. Basically any non-commercial usage.

That would be a rather drastic licensing difference... Can you quote a 
source for this?

Post a reply to this message

>>>>  Amazon has Office 2007 Home/Student version for 67 pounds. That gets 
>>>> you Word, Excel and PowerPoint which can be installed on up to 3 
>>>> machines. Doesn't sound bad to me!
>>>
>>> Sure, but only if you're a student. That's no help to anybody else.
>
>> No, not just for students. Basically any non-commercial usage.
>
> That would be a rather drastic licensing difference... Can you quote a 
> source for this?

http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/suites/HA101655301033.aspx

"Are there license restrictions to Office Home and Student 2007?

Yes. Office Home and Student 2007 is licensed only for noncommercial use by 
households. It cannot be used in commercial (business) situations."

Post a reply to this message

> I would be far more sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that Open 
> Office was put together in (comparatively speaking) five minutes yet works 
> far better than the thing it's copying.

I guess it's really easy (comparatively speaking) if you have another 
program to copy exactly.

Post a reply to this message

>>>> Sure, but only if you're a student. That's no help to anybody else.
>>
>>> No, not just for students. Basically any non-commercial usage.
>>
>> That would be a rather drastic licensing difference... Can you quote a 
>> source for this?
> 
> http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/suites/HA101655301033.aspx
> 
> "Are there license restrictions to Office Home and Student 2007?
> 
> Yes. Office Home and Student 2007 is licensed only for noncommercial use 
> by households. It cannot be used in commercial (business) situations."

...but no mention of you having to actually *be* a student...

Oh, I see. It's actually called "Home and Student Edition". Interesting. 
When my mum tried to buy this, it was "Student Edition" and you actually 
had to provide proof of enrolement, etc. Apparently they've changed 
their policy...

Well, I guess at least I can say I've learned something today.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I would be far more sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that Open 
>> Office was put together in (comparatively speaking) five minutes yet 
>> works far better than the thing it's copying.
> 
> I guess it's really easy (comparatively speaking) if you have another 
> program to copy exactly.

Depends what it does.

For something like a word processor, which is basically 95% UI, you're 
probably right about that...

Post a reply to this message

> Depends what it does.
>
> For something like a word processor, which is basically 95% UI, you're 
> probably right about that...

Also note that OO have released a pretty much continuous stream of updates 
and patches since it was released to fix bugs and security holes, even 
though they probably have fewer users than MS has beta testing new products. 
Maybe it's just really hard and time-consuming to write bug-free software, 
and not just that MS can't be bothered after all?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> Amazon has Office 2007 Home/Student version for 67 pounds. That gets 
>> you Word, Excel and PowerPoint which can be installed on up to 3 
>> machines. Doesn't sound bad to me!
> 
> Sure, but only if you're a student. That's no help to anybody else.
> 

Well, that and.. Its been more than 10 years since MS put out a 
"student" version of anything that didn't basically leave out a mess of 
features, on the grounds that you "don't really need them". Their 
versions of Visual Studio being a good example. The student additions 
where usually made so that you couldn't compile to a full executable, 
which would run separate from the design environment. Other companies 
did similar things with their products. Don't know if they changed that, 
but I don't trust "anything" that has the words "student edition" in 
them any more. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> 
> It does come with a lot of computers though, again I suspect they get a
> bulk discount on Office as well as Windows.
> 

All Office 2007's I've seen coming with a computer, have been 30day
trial versions.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I would be far more sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that Open 
> Office was put together in (comparatively speaking) five minutes yet 
> works far better than the thing it's copying.

I wouldn't know, I stopped using it a few years ago.  It was buggy as 
he**, and slow as molasses at the time.

Office 2007, on the other hand, works great.  With the exception of 
Outlook (which I love, but don't use due to its crippling speed issues). 
  And it sounds like Office 2010 is going to be even better.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

> I wouldn't know, I stopped using it a few years ago.  It was buggy as 
> he**, and slow as molasses at the time.

It doesn't seem to have got any faster:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=480

> Office 2007, on the other hand, works great.  With the exception of 
> Outlook (which I love, but don't use due to its crippling speed issues).

What's slow in 2007?  I have Outlook 2003 at the moment and would be 
interested to know before our IT people force us to upgrade.  So far I have 
no speed issues in 2003, even with almost 10GB of emails now!

Post a reply to this message

>> I wouldn't know, I stopped using it a few years ago.  It was buggy as 
>> he**, and slow as molasses at the time.
> 
> It doesn't seem to have got any faster:

Interesting...

I find OO slightly annoying at times because it lacks various features 
(or they're just well hidden), but I hadn't experienced any difficulty 
with either slowness or bugginess. (Indeed, IME it's been significantly 
*less* buggy than M$ Office...)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> What's slow in 2007?  I have Outlook 2003 at the moment and would be 
> interested to know before our IT people force us to upgrade.  So far I 
> have no speed issues in 2003, even with almost 10GB of emails now!

Checking emails.  For me, it took around 3-5 seconds per email to 
download from the server, which is crippling when you have a couple 
hundred emails per day.

Thunderbird managed to download all my emails in about 10 seconds total.

There were other issues as well, but that was the big one for me.  If 
you search for "slow outlook 2007" on the web, you'll get lots of 
examples - it seems that everyone has a different problem with it.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Oh, I see. It's actually called "Home and Student Edition". Interesting. 
> When my mum tried to buy this, it was "Student Edition" and you actually 
> had to provide proof of enrolement, etc. Apparently they've changed 
> their policy...

The Student versions that require proof of enrollment tend to be even 
more heavily discounted.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

>> What's slow in 2007?  I have Outlook 2003 at the moment and would be 
>> interested to know before our IT people force us to upgrade.  So far I 
>> have no speed issues in 2003, even with almost 10GB of emails now!
>
> Checking emails.  For me, it took around 3-5 seconds per email to download 
> from the server, which is crippling when you have a couple hundred emails 
> per day.

That would be really annoying, I don't think our IT guys could get away with 
that here - everyone would demand they fix it, as like you most people have 
hundreds of emails per day.

> Thunderbird managed to download all my emails in about 10 seconds total.

Does Thunderbird work with Exchange?

> There were other issues as well, but that was the big one for me.  If you 
> search for "slow outlook 2007" on the web, you'll get lots of examples - 
> it seems that everyone has a different problem with it.

I guess that's why our IT people are still testing Office 2007 then :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Tell you what, if you'd like to come over sometime and show our Report 
>> Writers how to make Word stop crashing constantly, I'm sure they'd be 
>> delighted...
>
> Sure, post it here (plus any template files) minus any confidential 
> text/images and I'm sure I won't be the only one willing to give it a look 
> over.

You fixed it yourself?

Post a reply to this message

>>> Tell you what, if you'd like to come over sometime and show our 
>>> Report Writers how to make Word stop crashing constantly, I'm sure 
>>> they'd be delighted...
>>
>> Sure, post it here (plus any template files) minus any confidential 
>> text/images and I'm sure I won't be the only one willing to give it a 
>> look over.
> 
> You fixed it yourself?

I've long since given up hope of ever fixing this. Besides, I can't hand 
over confidential files. It's more than my job is worth.

Post a reply to this message

>> You fixed it yourself?
>
> I've long since given up hope of ever fixing this.

OOC what have you already tried to do to fix this?  Contrary to what you 
might believe, it's not normal for Word to crash, and when it does crash 
there is usually a logical explanation (like a corrupt file or template, or 
buggy printer driver) which can often be fixed.

Post a reply to this message

>>> You fixed it yourself?
>>
>> I've long since given up hope of ever fixing this.
> 
> OOC what have you already tried to do to fix this?  Contrary to what you 
> might believe, it's not normal for Word to crash, and when it does crash 
> there is usually a logical explanation (like a corrupt file or template, 
> or buggy printer driver) which can often be fixed.

Word 2.0 used to crash on me back when I was at school. At college, it 
was still crashing. At uni we had Word 95, and it still crashed. And at 
work we've gone through a few different versions of Word, all of which 
crash from time to time. (Although I must admit, it seems to be becoming 
less frequent in the last few years.)

We did have an old Toshiba printer which used to crash even Excel and 
Notepad. We got rid of it. Several of our customers give us Word 
templates which they demand we use; certain of these seem to cause Word 
to behave strangely or just crash.

However, every now and then, Word will just crash, all by itself, 
without any observable cause. It's just how Word is. Multiple versions 
of the product, on multiple PCs, with various combinations of hotfixes 
installed. The Word MSVP website has entire sections dedicated to how to 
stop Word crashing, and how to recover corrupted documents. This section 
exists _for a reason_. :-(

But then again, Windows itself sometimes crashes. (Although that's quite 
a lot rarer. Windows XP tends to be quite stable now, which is 
interesting considering how crash-happy it was when it first came 
out...) Usually you never do find out why it crashed.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:06:17 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> This section exists _for
> a reason_. :-(

Don't forget though that for those people who it doesn't crash, they 
don't come in and say "hey, just wanted to let you know, it works fine 
here for me every time".  That the group exists and that there are posts 
in it doesn't mean that everyone has these problems or that they're 
"normal".

Jim

Post a reply to this message