Big Bill Knows Better Than You

[GwydionM]

I've just migrated from Windows 98 to Windows XP, and I mostly like the new product. What irritates me is the lack of CHOICE: you are supposed to do things the Microsoft way, if you want the convenience of using an operating system that works with off-the-shelf software and which you can use without the deep technical knowledge required for a successful Linux system.

One item, you are always given windows of exactly the same size. You can choose the default view, but not the size, which is quite a bit bigger than I need. I checked and their are 'patches' to fix it. But not a standard method, of the sort that AOL have had in their system for some time, allowing you to choose the window size and position.

One irritant in Windows 98 was a stupid message that came up after every system crash. It told you off for having switched off without using the standard shut-down, which I never do do. It didn't allow for the posibility that you had always done this and that something else (maybe non-Microsoft software) had caused the crash. (Since my XP has so far been impeccable, I have no idea whether this has been improved.)

It is a deep American idea that they have a right and even a duty to impose their own way of doing things on you. Big Bill Knows Better Than You.

Consider Outlook. If you are a busy manager whose life is a round of meetings, then it is wonderful. But to set yourself a little reminder, you have to pretend it is a meeting, why?

 

[wbg34]

GwydionM,
I can understand your frustration and faec that at times myself. As a technical user I choose to deal more and more woth Linux as time goes by. On the otherhand, one of the things I like about Microsofts products is what you call "the lack of CHOICE".
I consider this "lack of choice" to be consistency among product lines. You call it "the Microsoft way" and your right. I'm glad its that way because it is consistant across MS products and that makes them easier to learn. If you learn one MS app, then you have a good foundation for learning another MS app. As a person who's responsible for training new staff I rely on Microsoft's Consistency.
That consistency is the main reason that as of now I wouldn't consider switching my customers off of windows even though I feel Linux to be a better OS.

 

[BakeMan]

I agree with both of these posts. I love the fact that MS products are consistent from application to application but am increasing frustrated by the lack of flexibility. MS has to learn that there are several levels of users. This flexibility is not necessary for the person who only uses their PC to surf the web and send emails, but would be a great help for those of us that earn our living on them. MS is trying to make a one-size-fits-all OS and is alienating all of its users in the process. If MS would take the time to keep things consistent as far as features from application to application but also allow the ability to customize each application (including the OS) in more ways and not assume they know what you are going to use it for better than you do your self, then they would be even more successful have fewer detractors.

Just my two cents,

BAKEMAN

 

[venkman]

I understand your arguments for consistency, but I don't agree with the basic premise. I don't think choice breeds lack of consistency.

The argument for consistency is that it allows easy training of non-tech people. Rather than telling someone that they have to change an option somewhere, you can say "go to tools, then click options, on the third tab....etc.". However, if there was a way to customize this, I don't think that's a bad thing. non-tech users would simply not use this feature, so they would be just as easy to deal with, while tech users could change it if they wanted to. You'd have to hide the ability to change this sort of stuff so that those without the technical know how wouldn't get themselves into trouble, but that's not that hard to come up with. I think Mozilla's "about:config" page is substantial enough to scare of your average user, but allows someone with just a little know-how to change stuff around.

-Venkman

 

[Stevehewitt]

Um, what OS are you using at the moment? If you really want you could slap Mac or Linux. They both support office and most hardware.

Can you imagine the problems if there were 10+ O/S? The price of all of them would go up cause the extra work to integrate with each other.

There isn't a debate here.

 

[venkman]

I disagree with that concept. We shouldn't be trying to go towards one OS to prevent interoperability problems. Instead, we should be trying to promote interoperability through things like java or open source projects.

That point aside, 10 OS's may be extreme, but I don't think 4 would be so bad.

-Venkman

 

[GwydionM]

I used to use Mac, but at work they were using Windows. I like to be able to use my machine 'on autopilot', without stopping to think before I do routine actions, which are subtly different on the two systems - [Ctrl]Q, for instance. So I found it was easier to go with the flow.

I also used to use Psion hand-helds, and found their operating system better, I really liked the Psion 7. But commercial pressures are making for less and less real choice.

 

[venkman]

GwydionM -

The thing is that stuff like hotkeys should be configurable. There should be a configuration script that you run once on a mac and poof! you have all the hot keys you are used to on a pc.

Along that same line, there should be window managers and desktop environments for linux that make your linux system look exactly the same as Windows. And while we're at it, it would be nice to see the same thing on Mac OS and Windows.

These are much better goals than trying to remove choice and competition from the OS market.

-Venkman

 

[MDXer]

The configurable hotkeys is something I see MS is moving towards. In VS.NET you can customize your hotkeys or remove existing ones. It is one of the customization options buried deep in the menu choices. I think if it became something people utilized then it might become more widely available. I wouldn't expect it anytime soon but eventually it will probably happen on the MS side, not sure about the others though.

On a side question. Why do so many people think Microsoft should adopt or implement things the same way other OSs do? To many people already complain and believe that microsoft is stealing from other companies. I could only imaine what people's attitudes would be like if they started doing things More like mac or X windows.

I am by no means a Microsoft defender or believe that they do everything right. But what I do believe is people choosing the right tool for the right job. People and Companies in to start making more informed decisions when it comes to what software the purchase. Would anyone recomend a Small company invest in Oracle if their Database is going to be a few hundrend megabytes just because people say it is better than MS SQL?

No software is 100% what everyone wants it to be. What people should reconize is that Windows has made significant improvements over the past decade. Microsoft can also be a very responsive company if you work issues with them in a proper fashion.

If people recommended or made known their desires in a more constructive manner instead of tearing things apart in a negative fashion then maybe some things would get done.

"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck

 

[Stevehewitt]

Getting back to the first post, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Windows is fine for about 95% of all desktops and probably 70% of all servers. Some people like the customisablity of Linux/Unix (open source), some just want something to do the job out of the box without having to play with code and complex command lines. There are three major O/S at the moment. Windows, Mac OS and Linux. All are good in their own different areas. If there wasn't a market leader then there would be no reasons to chose one over the other. At the moment Mac is good for designing and graphics, Linux is good for large companies who require huge flexability and Windows does pretty much everything else and can do (very limited mind you) parts of the other too. There is room for three O/S's, but more that that and its too much where each product looses its niche.