Can you give an example? I'm still impressed about being a very unusual person for being happy with WindowsJeremy Bernstein wrote:As for day-to-day usability, Windows is a clumsy nightmare, IMO.
![Surprised :o](./images/smilies/icon_e_surprised.gif)
Can you give an example? I'm still impressed about being a very unusual person for being happy with WindowsJeremy Bernstein wrote:As for day-to-day usability, Windows is a clumsy nightmare, IMO.
Exhibit #1: Choose folder dialog always opens to the root of the file system, rather than to the last location accessed, even from within the same app.Uly wrote:Can you give an example? I'm still impressed about being a very unusual person for being happy with WindowsJeremy Bernstein wrote:As for day-to-day usability, Windows is a clumsy nightmare, IMO.
If it meets your need, that's good. I'm happy for you. Others have more dynamic, demanding circumstances and requirements, such as an ability to customize workflow or work with a more intuitive interface. They also need something designed first and formost to be robust, from the ground up, i.e. something of professinal grade. They need something that is not continually undermining productivity with down time or other forms of system unavailability caused by arbitrary Microsoft policies.Uly wrote:I'm still impressed about being a very unusual person for being happy with Windows
Around here Choose folder dialog always opens to last location accessed. Even, I think my sister found a way to do it type based, so the folder openend depends on the kind of file you're working with.Jeremy Bernstein wrote:Exhibit #1: Choose folder dialog always opens to the root of the file system, rather than to the last location accessed, even from within the same app.
I wasn't aware that Windows had a start dock. For that I use third party application RocketDock.Jeremy Bernstein wrote:Exhibit #2: You can't drag documents to the big icons in the start dock.
How does Windows undermine productivity?orgfert wrote:They need something that is not continually undermining productivity
What down time? My Windows is always up when I want to use it.orgfert wrote: with down time
I'm not aware of obstructive Microsoft policies, I just turn off the Firewall and auto-updates and I seem ready to go.orgfert wrote: caused by arbitrary Microsoft policies.
Is it the DLL that goes in the application or system folder?orgfert wrote:The first thing I do when getting a new Windows machine from my employer is install Cygwin.
Probably many things you say are true, but these last comments sound like an exaggeration.orgfert wrote:Windows is useless out of the box. [...]
Windows is a palpably user-hostile environment, suspicious of your every move, always with an eye on your wallet
"* Please note that Windows XP x64 Edition, Windows Vista 64-bit Editions, Windows 7 64-bit Editions, and alternate shells are not yet supported."Uly wrote:I wasn't aware that Windows had a start dock. For that I use third party application RocketDock.
We're talking typical user experience, you know, where people actually put a computer under "load" for months on end. My Vista machine was utilizing the ATI GPU (the graphics accelerator) to fold proteins, 365x24. See Folding@Home.Uly wrote:How does Windows undermine productivity?orgfert wrote:They need something that is not continually undermining productivity
What down time? My Windows is always up when I want to use it.orgfert wrote: with down time
http://catb.org/jargon/html/E/evil-and-rude.htmlUly wrote:I'm not aware of obstructive Microsoft policies, I just turn off the Firewall and auto-updates and I seem ready to go.orgfert wrote: caused by arbitrary Microsoft policies.
http://www.cygwin.com/Uly wrote:Is it the DLL that goes in the application or system folder?orgfert wrote:The first thing I do when getting a new Windows machine from my employer is install Cygwin.
It's fortunate that Windows works so well for you. But it's a failure of imagination to assume that your requirements are not less than anyone else's. I need complimentary, robust tools. You don't. I need flawless and indefinite up-time. You don't. That alone explains many of the differences in our user experience.Uly wrote:Probably many things you say are true, but these last comments sound like an exaggeration.orgfert wrote:Windows is useless out of the box. [...]
Windows is a palpably user-hostile environment, suspicious of your every move, always with an eye on your wallet
Anyway guys, I just find it weird that it seems as if my Windows is alien or we're talking about different OSes, I was just curious of why.
Yeah, I only use it on my 32bit partition. And, anyway, what's so special about a dock? I have the applications I use most frequently anchored on the start menu, including there a link to a folder in where I have shortcuts for the rest of my applications.orgfert wrote:"* Please note that Windows XP x64 Edition, Windows Vista 64-bit Editions, Windows 7 64-bit Editions, and alternate shells are not yet supported."
Oops.
I didn't know putting the computer into 100% CPU load for months on end was typical, specially with the price of power as it is.orgfert wrote:We're talking typical user experience, you know, where people actually put a computer under "load" for months on end.
I don't use Unix and am not aware that using Unix is typical for the Windows user.orgfert wrote:http://catb.org/jargon/html/E/evil-and-rude.html
But it goes the other way around, I've read a lot of Linux users complaining about not being able to run Windows software in their machine, problems with Wine and ultimately having to beg software authors to release Linux versions. With Windows you download and it runs.orgfert wrote:http://www.cygwin.com/
I agree, but I still don't think YOUR needs are typical, most people are just going to use Windows for checking their email and playing some games or do homework, I don't think I'm at the bottom of the need scale, and think that most people are just going to feel at home in Windows.orgfert wrote:It's fortunate that Windows works so well for you. But it's a failure of imagination to assume that your requirements are not less than anyone else's. I need complimentary, robust tools. You don't. I need flawless and indefinite up-time. You don't. That alone explains many of the differences in our user experience.
You don't see the need because you've never had one and then had to go without. The specific example of its usefulness was of dragging a document to the application icon and having that application open the document without further ado. The dock will also do a hiding behavior like the task bar, only all your important app icons are right there without even clicking. It's a click-saver convenience that conforms to natural mouse gestures, speeding workflow by all important milliseconds, because you can't have computer response time be fast enough. This is something Apple understood from the very beginning. It goes back to studies on sub-second response times in mainframe terminal applications, where small changes in response time had a large effect on user stress levels.Uly wrote:Yeah, I only use it on my 32bit partition. And, anyway, what's so special about a dock? I have the applications I use most frequently anchored on the start menu, including there a link to a folder in where I have shortcuts for the rest of my applications.orgfert wrote:"* Please note that Windows XP x64 Edition, Windows Vista 64-bit Editions, Windows 7 64-bit Editions, and alternate shells are not yet supported."
Oops.
I bypass entirely Windows's "All Programs>" functionality which is admittedly a mess, but I didn't install RocketDock in my 64bit partition not because it wouldn't work, but because I didn't see the need for a Dock.
It doesn't have to be typical, only possible. Windows can't handle it. Everthing else can. The techniques for robustness are known. But Microsoft has undermined its own designs for reasons other than stability being the most important thing. It's not the most important thing for them. Yet there has never been a valid excuse for their low level of stability. They just don't care. They don't have to care to make mountains of cash. Evil and rude is not an exaggeration.Uly wrote:I didn't know putting the computer into 100% CPU load for months on end was typical, specially with the price of power as it is.orgfert wrote:We're talking typical user experience, you know, where people actually put a computer under "load" for months on end.
It's typical for professionals in comptuer science. So why design a system that is hostile to computer scientists? Doing so is "evil and rude".Uly wrote:I don't use Unix and am not aware that using Unix is typical for the Windows user.orgfert wrote:http://catb.org/jargon/html/E/evil-and-rude.html
Because Microsoft didn't/don't want Windows to be compatible with real operating systems. They want to trap users into always needing Windows, coercing them as much as possible into the necessity of buying Windows over and over again. This priority dictates that it be incompatible with other operating systems. Application designers are similarly trapped into devoloping for the platform with the largest installed base. It costs more to develop for more than one platform. Microsoft have succeeded in creating a catch-22 for developers and users, trapping both on a platform that is generally of inferior design to its rivals. When users are trapped into using your platform in this particular catch-22 way, you don't have to be the best, becuase that's not why people are choosing your platform anyway. They are choosing it because that's the only platform that has the applicaiton they want. Developers are trapped because that's where all the users are.Uly wrote:But it goes the other way around, I've read a lot of Linux users complaining about not being able to run Windows software in their machine, problems with Wine and ultimately having to beg software authors to release Linux versions. With Windows you download and it runs.orgfert wrote:http://www.cygwin.com/
That's OK if that's all you need it for. Go forth and be happy. But if you need it to do more serious work, it is a relatively more hostile and less stable environment when compared to the alternatives. When one is used to the alternatives, having to settle for Windows is extemely aggravating.Uly wrote:I agree, but I still don't think YOUR needs are typical, most people are just going to use Windows for checking their email and playing some games or do homework, I don't think I'm at the bottom of the need scale, and think that most people are just going to feel at home in Windows.orgfert wrote:It's fortunate that Windows works so well for you. But it's a failure of imagination to assume that your requirements are not less than anyone else's. I need complimentary, robust tools. You don't. I need flawless and indefinite up-time. You don't. That alone explains many of the differences in our user experience.
Mongolians are happy living in a yurt.Uly wrote:I don't disagree with any of your arguments, but may claim stands: "most people are going to be happy with Windows".