This is a nonsense.Windows is supposed to be easy to use. You shouldn't have to be expected to know how to partition a disk in order to use it with less hassle.
The fact is, Windows just isn't easy for people to use. That's why people get frustrated with PCs and think they're prone to crashing or being fucking awkward. It's usually not the PC but the Microsoft OS.
I'm not saying that other OSes don't crash or that you need to have some technical knowledge to use, but I think it's cheeky to charge so much money for something that doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
(The fact is, Windows just isn't easy for people to use. That's why people get frustrated with PCs and think they're prone to crashing or being fucking awkward. It's usually not the PC but the Microsoft OS.
I'm not saying that other OSes don't crash or that you need to have some technical knowledge to use, but I think it's cheeky to charge so much money for something that doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
wheelybird mreee!,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:10,
archived)
I don't knowwhere the idea that OS's are supposed to be easy to use comes from. I know Microsoft's mission is to make them easier and more trouble free for the end user but at the end of the day they are a complicated piece of kit and need technical know-how to operate properly, that goes for Ubuntu, OSX or Windows.
Windows Vista happens to be far superior to XP in terms of end user friendliness.
regardless of the cost of an OS, it is common knowledge that you don't have to pay for one if you don't want to.
(Windows Vista happens to be far superior to XP in terms of end user friendliness.
regardless of the cost of an OS, it is common knowledge that you don't have to pay for one if you don't want to.
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:16,
archived)
Wellyou do have to pay for Windows if you're running a business or you're in trouble if FAST or whoever want to audit you.
Microsoft have always implied that their products are easier to use, secure and stable. The security and stability bits are blatant lies. The implication of user-friendliness is suspect. They spend millions of dollars a year on 'user friendliness', but always seem to be a year or so behind other software developers (both commerical and open source) that actually do improve the interfaces.
Take IE for example. Everyone else used tabs in the browser because they're more efficient and intuitive. However Microsoft's response (before adding them to IE) was that "if users wanted tabs in their browser, they would have told us." Which is bizarre considering how much they're meant to spend on research into interfaces rather than just sitting there waiting for people to demand new features.
Have they even introduced virtual workspaces yet? They increase desktop efficiency, but they weren't implemented even in XP.
(Microsoft have always implied that their products are easier to use, secure and stable. The security and stability bits are blatant lies. The implication of user-friendliness is suspect. They spend millions of dollars a year on 'user friendliness', but always seem to be a year or so behind other software developers (both commerical and open source) that actually do improve the interfaces.
Take IE for example. Everyone else used tabs in the browser because they're more efficient and intuitive. However Microsoft's response (before adding them to IE) was that "if users wanted tabs in their browser, they would have told us." Which is bizarre considering how much they're meant to spend on research into interfaces rather than just sitting there waiting for people to demand new features.
Have they even introduced virtual workspaces yet? They increase desktop efficiency, but they weren't implemented even in XP.
wheelybird mreee!,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:30,
archived)
I was talking about the OSand IE is a browser. Virtual desktops have been available since the first power toys release for XP.
( Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:35,
archived)
IEis an integral part of the Windows OS these days.
But the research into human/computer interfaces they spend all that money on includes the Windows OS too, and has very little to show for all the time and money.
XP may have introduced virtual desktops, but they've been available for at least a decade more than that on other OSes.
I'm not advising people not to use Windows. As you say, other OSes also need some (or a fair amount of) technical knowledge too. It's just that Microsoft don't seem to realise that their product is somewhat crap.
(But the research into human/computer interfaces they spend all that money on includes the Windows OS too, and has very little to show for all the time and money.
XP may have introduced virtual desktops, but they've been available for at least a decade more than that on other OSes.
I'm not advising people not to use Windows. As you say, other OSes also need some (or a fair amount of) technical knowledge too. It's just that Microsoft don't seem to realise that their product is somewhat crap.
wheelybird mreee!,
Wed 21 May 2008, 17:40,
archived)