>>   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