Other Software > Developer's Corner
Ribbon UI - is it really THAT good?
40hz:
All of this is just FUD, and maybe from a consumer prospective or even a small ISV prospective it might seem that this is just around the corner. But coming from somewhere that has a huge IT department and that has just spent a sickening amount of money on VS2010 and MSDN, I can tell you that it just isn't so.
-wraith808 (December 26, 2011, 09:08 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you that all of this is "just" FUD. (Gotta be careful with that "just" argument. I'm often guilty of that myself.) But I suppose our corporate work experiences are rather different. ;)
Either way, time will tell. :)
TaoPhoenix:
Hi gang.
I would like to bring up the Plugin approach. I too am frustrated at being dictated at by MS (and sometimes other vendors). It's not my problem if the Ribbon is more fun with clicky buttons for new users. I developed my little collection of skills (in my case, Excel) using the old menus, so it's not nice to lose that muscle memory. Plus, I also dislike the full screen file menu and print preview menu!
So I installed a plugin that adds back the old menus. It turns out the old code is still there! In effect all MS did was remove the street signs.
So I also guess that when WinMetro 8 etc comes out, there will be a way to turn it off, even if it takes a mini app to do it. I don't think MS can dare to throw out desktop code entirely, it's too cross-linked everywhere in dependencies. So they'll shove Metro in the spotlight, and just put a lock on the door in front of the "old code basement".
wraith808:
All of this is just FUD, and maybe from a consumer prospective or even a small ISV prospective it might seem that this is just around the corner. But coming from somewhere that has a huge IT department and that has just spent a sickening amount of money on VS2010 and MSDN, I can tell you that it just isn't so.
-wraith808 (December 26, 2011, 09:08 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you that all of this is "just" FUD. (Gotta be careful with that "just" argument. I'm often guilty of that myself.) But I suppose our corporate work experiences are rather different. ;)
Either way, time will tell. :)
-40hz (December 26, 2011, 11:37 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'd guess it depends on the types of companies you work for, and the type of work that you do. IT encompasses a whole lot now, but as a developer, I work for firms that to a large degree depend on software, even if they sell a different product. My current company sells information- collated and sourced investment information. Numbers and such when you break it down. But they use software to get that, collate it, source it, check it, package it, and deliver it. And though there might be third party tools used, its to a large degree very custom. Too custom at times. But when time to market is everything, using the same thing as everyone else is not going to cut it. Believe me, we've discussed Metro and what it means. And dealing directly with Microsoft, it doesn't mean what people are saying it means. Of course, that could just be talking to the audience, and I'm not dismissive of any information (or at least try not to be), and excuse if the 'just' offended.
But as you say, it will all come out in time. And it is a good thing to watch for signs so that when that time comes, you can be prepared. :)
40hz:
@wraith- no offense taken. I've 'just' ;D learned to be careful with thinking "just" in the same thought with anything involving Microsoft. They are sharp, fast, tough, and merciless when it comes to negotiations.
BTW 90% of my corporate experience is with very large corporations - as employee and vendor. So big is no stranger to me. I've worked for both Fortune 5 and 500. At the Fortune 5, I was directly responsible for software licensing and distribution for this multinational behemoth. I also sat in on some of the negotiations that provided the prototype for much of what later became MS's corporate volume and site license programs.
And having seen the heavyweights in action, I have a *very* different perspective on how these deals get made. And don't. :)
steeladept:
I'm advising my business clients not to buy any app they will use in their business from an app store where the owner of the store can kill apps already purchased. No business in their right mind should want any applications -- especially applications that are or might become "business critical" -- that someone can kill switch at any time. That's like giving someone a kill switch for your business. I really don't think Microsoft has thought a lot of this stuff through given that a lot of their income comes from sales to businesses.
-rssapphire (December 25, 2011, 07:25 PM)
--- End quote ---
I love this quote because it DEFINES my problem with "cloud computing". My only caveat is that it should be person instead of business. :Thmbsup:
Point is, if Microsoft goes that route, it's far easier for enterprise customers to go along than it is for them to retool over to a new OS and a new set of core applications. Especially since Microsoft has already announced plans to allow big corporate users to run what amounts to their own app store in-house.
-40hz (December 26, 2011, 06:30 AM)
--- End quote ---
I have to agree here, primarily because of the last statement. If they are allowed to "own" their own app store and download the bits (not unlike the current licensing scheme they are allowed to implement), then there is no need for them to worry much about it. IT already is the stop-light for software distribution, this is just another tool to make it easier for IT to do what it already does.
The problem with the argument about custom software is two-fold in my opinion. First off, custom is expensive. It costs a lot to develop and orders of magnitude more to maintain. Moreover the knowledge and experiences gained cannot and will not ever be fully captured. Documentation only takes you so far. I work on a mainframe that was developed in-house in the 80's. Today we have 2nd and in some cases 3rd generation personnel working on these systems. Many times, they don't even know what it is doing, and even if they do, they don't know all the details. As often as not, if an obscure or rarely failing piece fails to work, they try restarting it. If it truly is broke, they apply patches that are essentially error catches that tell it how to function now, because they don't know how to fix the original code or in some cases even where that code resides.
The second problem with the argument is that more often than not (due to time & other cost considerations) the "custom" code is little more than glue-scripts that exchange data between two packages. It is rare that any software is fully customized, even in large corporations, unless there is no other alternative or it IS the product. Can it be done? Of course. Will it be done? Only if there is NO other reasonable solution.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version