Post by: Ceric on May 07, 2007, 07:27:02 AM
Its an interesting article that talks about how Microsoft is having a hard time progressing on with its software because of the users. Its much like on a computer old standards are hard to drop even if they make the whole machine faster. It sort of goes with what I've been arguing for a while.
On the Mac side of things:
These two articles are interesting as well
Post by: Galford on May 07, 2007, 06:27:06 PM
As someone who works at a telecom company in Internet support I case safely say end users don't like change.
Even change for the better.
On a side note, one reason OS X rarely crashes is Jobs controls both the software and hardware end of things.
If MS did the same thing, Windows would never crash.
Post by: Kairon on May 07, 2007, 07:08:31 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on May 07, 2007, 07:16:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
On a side note, one reason OS X rarely crashes is Jobs controls both the software and hardware end of things.
If MS did the same thing, Windows would never crash.
Indeed, since 2k my only system crashes were related to faulty hardware. There were other minor bugs though.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 07, 2007, 07:20:36 PM
Post by: Shift Key on May 07, 2007, 10:34:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Its an interesting article that talks about how Microsoft is having a hard time progressing on with its software because of the users. Its much like on a computer old standards are hard to drop even if they make the whole machine faster. It sort of goes with what I've been arguing for a while.
The example they cited there (new version of Hotmail similar to the Gmail interface - Web 2.0 applications for those playing along at home) is a case of Microsoft making a product that didn't suit the users that they targeted.
Unlike Gmail users, Hotmail users are not as computer savvy. They're more likely to be using dialup connections and are happy with the current Hotmail interface. So when Microsoft produced this spiffy new interface with functionality that mimics desktop functionality such as drag-and-drop, the problem is not the users but the software development process.
They didn't give enough consideration to what their current users wanted.
They didn't factor in how a new system would affect current Hotmail users.
They didn't consider user feedback in the development process, which is suprising considering this product would be applied to a large existing userbase.
Nailing down requirements and getting user feedback is the toughest part of software development. This just shows that even the biggest companies are not immune to this.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on May 08, 2007, 03:34:30 AM
Post by: Ceric on May 08, 2007, 04:18:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shift KeyQuote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Its an interesting article that talks about how Microsoft is having a hard time progressing on with its software because of the users. Its much like on a computer old standards are hard to drop even if they make the whole machine faster. It sort of goes with what I've been arguing for a while.
The example they cited there (new version of Hotmail similar to the Gmail interface - Web 2.0 applications for those playing along at home) is a case of Microsoft making a product that didn't suit the users that they targeted.
Unlike Gmail users, Hotmail users are not as computer savvy. They're more likely to be using dialup connections and are happy with the current Hotmail interface. So when Microsoft produced this spiffy new interface with functionality that mimics desktop functionality such as drag-and-drop, the problem is not the users but the software development process.
They didn't give enough consideration to what their current users wanted.
They didn't factor in how a new system would affect current Hotmail users.
They didn't consider user feedback in the development process, which is suprising considering this product would be applied to a large existing userbase.
Nailing down requirements and getting user feedback is the toughest part of software development. This just shows that even the biggest companies are not immune to this.
I disagree a little here because they did change it to the classic side of things before releasing to the general public and made the necessary changes.
GoldenPheonix: I really like Office 2007 as well but sometimes the autoformatting for the space between lines is really really annoying when you just want to make a list.
MS is sort of Darned if they do Darned if they don't. The vocal parties want MS to release new OS's in a more timely fashion and be more like OSX. MS makes a move towards that direction and another party becomes vocal because its not what they had before and don't want to have to deal with an OS upgrade every say 2 years. I'm sort of surprise that the ribbon and Office 2007 hasn't gotten really ribbed yet. I personally enjoy using the ribbon and like. I also really like the new shortcut key system.
Anyway personally I rather OS's follow a game console lifecycle, 4 year minimum - 10 years. Then a generation that is just an enhancement and something totally new after that. Yearly updates and the like are just to much of a hassle in IT land. Service Packs are a little better because they don't really need a wipe to be done properly.
Post by: Smash_Brother on May 09, 2007, 06:18:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
In particular I like Smash_Brother to read this article.
I can only imagine that MS must be pulling their hair out when they look at the situation of people not wanting to update to a newer Hotmail but then look at the situation of millions embracing the Wii for being so drastically different.
Quote
On a side note, one reason OS X rarely crashes is Jobs controls both the software and hardware end of things.
If MS did the same thing, Windows would never crash.
There's a hacked Intel version of OSX out there which can run on any Intel PC and it doesn't crash, either.
Post by: Athrun Zala on May 09, 2007, 07:19:32 PM
Quotesorta.
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
On a side note, one reason OS X rarely crashes is Jobs controls both the software and hardware end of things.
If MS did the same thing, Windows would never crash.
There's a hacked Intel version of OSX out there which can run on any Intel PC and it doesn't crash, either.
Regarding processors, it runs on A64s as well, and must have AT LEAST SSE3.... it does "work" on SSE2 processors, but due to the lack of SSE3, you have to either patch a lot of stuff (apparently Rosetta depends a lot on SSE3) or get a specially patched version.. either way, last I heard it wasn't too stable in these cases...
And regarding the rest, you need Mac-supported hardware. Otherwise setting things up can be a real pain, have very limited functionality, or might not even work...
EDIT: typos fixed... (I really shouldn't post at 3AM XD)
Post by: Ian Sane on May 11, 2007, 05:59:33 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on May 11, 2007, 01:01:05 PM
Post by: Galford on May 11, 2007, 01:32:48 PM
The only time I've seen 2k crash consistenly is when someone installed the lasted Lotus Notes or was using it on a mechine that was vastly out of spec for it.
Lotus Notes is the only piece of software I've ever used that is more bloated then Office.
Ian, nothing wrong with Office 97, though I prefer Office 2000 for my Win9x machines.
It has most of the features from 97 but a lot more polish, but it does run a little slower.
