Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

From ZDnet writer - Final Thoughts on Windows 8: A Design Disaster

<< < (2/5) > >>

wraith808:
Vista isn't bad, and neither was 95 at least IMO.  I loved getting away from 3.11 into 95... I was working QA at the time, and 95 made my life a *lot* easier than the morass that was 3.11.  Vista just gets a bad rap for the way that MS's hubris (to borrow 40's perfect term for MS's OS view) forced certain things on the user.  The user doesn't want to have to work around the OS, but for the OS to work for them.  Metro seems like Bob, and really shows that he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

TaoPhoenix:

Hi Wraith,

I think the theme behind the chart was about how OS's like Win 95, and Win Vista sounded good conceptually, but had bad polish problems. I for one recall bad percentages of blue screens on win95 and did tech support for a buddy against Vista on one of those underspec'ed laptops that were in the news back then.

Meanwhile I got a Win98 machine as payment in barter for a project I did for someone, which had under 5 blue screens a year, and on that buddy's laptop I bought him a copy of Win7 myself which magically made a lot of problems go away.

Shades:
To me it is amazing that Microsoft with their (intellectual and financial) resources, is not able to sustain two different versions of Window management in their Operating System environment.

Yes, that design by committee thing that MS does I see as huge deficiency in their capabilities. Apple's GUI was build by "dictator" Jobs and there is something to say for that.

[rant]
The thought of having to use touch-based devices makes my stomach turn. Mainly because I absolutely hate(!!!) people touching my LCD screen when they think they have to point something out to me. Besides that, I will not downgrade to a tablet when I can have a desktop PC.

For me it is difficult to grasp why anyone wants one. So you can take it anywhere and (only) consume content? And pay monthly fees for that besides the fee you pay for your ISP connection (which data transfer speed trumps the speed of your mobile device)? And do the consuming in any position you like?
All of the above sound (financially) unhealthy to me, it is not for nothing you have ergonomic chairs, desks, keyboards and the like.

Which is why you should use the different parts in your house for their intended purpose only. No electronics in the room where I sleep, for example. I know we (me and the missus) sleep better because of that. Same with the kitchen, you cook, eat and have dinner conversation about how the day went with wife and kids, an "electronic" recipe is not allowed there (after all, the kitchen is the area where most accidents happen and I don't see a good reason to introduce expensive gadgets to those odds).

Old-fashioned I am sure, but it actually will save you a lot of headaches by not being always connected.  
[/rant]  

zridling:
I will not downgrade to a tablet when I can have a desktop PC. -Shades (June 17, 2012, 02:58 PM)
--- End quote ---
I thought the same, too, and I used a laptop for travel. But tablets got good in a hurry and, of all people, I was surprised at how useful the device could be in the field. No, it won't ever replace a desktop, though you can dock one to a keyboard and mouse, you're still not (yet) using a robust OS with it. For now, it's mainly a device made for reading, browsing, content consumption.

For me it is difficult to grasp why anyone wants one. So you can take it anywhere and (only) consume content? And pay monthly fees for that besides the fee you pay for your ISP connection (which data transfer speed trumps the speed of your mobile device)? And do the consuming in any position you like? All of the above sound (financially) unhealthy to me, it is not for nothing you have ergonomic chairs, desks, keyboards and the like. -Shades (June 17, 2012, 02:58 PM)
--- End quote ---
No monthly fees unless you want it connected all the time like a phone; your current ISP connection is shared via wifi; no extra cost at all. All you need is the wifi versions (of a particular tablet) that can connect using any wifi connection; 3G or 4G connectivity is what you'll pay extra for. For your home, all that takes is switching to a wireless router, for instance, and voila! you've got wifi. Also, a tablet allows me to spend even more time in the bathroom, ha! It's also great to have a few books downloaded for offline reading when I know I'm going to be waiting on someone, on a plane, in a doctor's office, etc. I can read, play games, compose email, but most of the time in those situations you won't have a wifi connection.

Which is why you should use the different parts in your house for their intended purpose only. No electronics in the room where I sleep, for example. I know we (me and the missus) sleep better because of that. Same with the kitchen, you cook, eat and have dinner conversation about how the day went with wife and kids, an "electronic" recipe is not allowed there (after all, the kitchen is the area where most accidents happen and I don't see a good reason to introduce expensive gadgets to those odds).-Shades (June 17, 2012, 02:58 PM)
--- End quote ---

Oh, I can't disagree with this at all. Put that gadget down and talk!

wraith808:
Which is why you should use the different parts in your house for their intended purpose only.
-Shades (June 17, 2012, 02:58 PM)
--- End quote ---

Who is to say what the intended purpose is?  By all means, if electronics is intruding too much into your space, it is good to set ground rules.  But we have such things fully integrated and parallel to our social use, i.e using the iPad instead of breaking out the board games- not to not play them, but to make them more convenient so that we can spend more time playing and less time setting up.  It's really a personal decision.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page