If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
|
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Your web site clock is off
On 08/21/2018 09:59 AM, Big Al wrote:
On 08/21/2018 10:34 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote: -- MarkÂ*Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ You've got a oops in your clock algorithm.Â*Â* I'm in Baltimore and your clock shows chicago.Â* The first two hops on traceroute are BALT routers. Just FYI. It seems to be working now. A simple bug that prevented the page from refreshing when Javascript detected a different timezone. Timezone is detected as America/New_York, the standard value for Eastern Time. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Religion: just say `no'." [Tim Smith] |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
On 08/21/2018 10:20 AM, John B. Smith wrote:
[snip] It's always been my contention that Microsoft craps up the user interface on any new Windows just to convince us boneheads we got a NEW operating system. It feels like they're also trying to punish anyone who actually knows how to use the computer. I finally bit the bullet and got Win7 when the Google Chrome browser started issuing dire warnings about it wouldn't update any longer if my OS was XP. Firefox was the last major browser to drop XP/Vista support (it's on the last version now). [snip] -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Religion: just say `no'." [Tim Smith] |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:06:05 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote: on Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:38:32 -0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: Good programmers creates intuitive programs. Bad programmers insist on turning the average user into a tech geek because they aren't creative enough to simplify the usage of a program. They themselves are text book geeks. Their programming is technically pretentious and perpetuates complexity. Programmers should keep the average user in mind, not the geeks. As we used to say back when I was taking classes: "User friendly" is "programmer hard". That is, not only do I have to figure out how it is to be done, but how it can be misunderstood, trap for those errors, and in addition, try to make it so that when they come up with the one way I hadn't considered, the program "dies gracefully." I don't know for sure how things are done at Microsoft, nor even how they are done at other companies these days, but back in the days before I retired, I worked in application development. Programmers didn't design the programs. It wasn't up to them to make programs "use, friendly," "simplify the usage of a program," "make the program die gracefully," or do anything else other than follow the directions of the designer of the program, the systems analyst. Assuming that Microsoft still works the same way, don't blame the programmers for things you don't like. The programmer follows the directions that the systems analyst designs, and the Quality Assurance department tests what he created to be sure that the programmer followed the design. If you don't like the results, the fault is that of either the systems analyst, QA, or both. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
Ken Blake on Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:42:05 -0700
typed in alt.windows7.general the following: On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:06:05 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote: on Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:38:32 -0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: Good programmers creates intuitive programs. Bad programmers insist on turning the average user into a tech geek because they aren't creative enough to simplify the usage of a program. They themselves are text book geeks. Their programming is technically pretentious and perpetuates complexity. Programmers should keep the average user in mind, not the geeks. As we used to say back when I was taking classes: "User friendly" is "programmer hard". That is, not only do I have to figure out how it is to be done, but how it can be misunderstood, trap for those errors, and in addition, try to make it so that when they come up with the one way I hadn't considered, the program "dies gracefully." I don't know for sure how things are done at Microsoft, nor even how they are done at other companies these days, but back in the days before I retired, I worked in application development. Programmers didn't design the programs. It wasn't up to them to make programs "use, friendly," "simplify the usage of a program," "make the program die gracefully," or do anything else other than follow the directions of the designer of the program, the systems analyst. Assuming that Microsoft still works the same way, don't blame the programmers for things you don't like. The programmer follows the directions that the systems analyst designs, and the Quality Assurance department tests what he created to be sure that the programmer followed the design. If you don't like the results, the fault is that of either the systems analyst, QA, or both. Yep. I realize that once you leave college, the care free days when you could do it however you wanted were over. You'd get a program spec, the expected inputs and outputs, and told "Make it happen, and follow the guidelines." As an end user, I realize that the design stage didn't consider all the possible errors, and QA didn't test for them either. Friend of mine was the one who did the "ID Ten T User" check, and discovered that if you hit the spacebar after the program started, it failed "gloriously". Not good for a back up program in the seventh release. But who would hit the spacebar (or any other key) once the program is running? "Gamma testers." tschus pyotr .... the universe keeps making better idiots. -- pyotr filipivich Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:06:05 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote: on Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:38:32 -0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: Good programmers creates intuitive programs. Bad programmers insist on turning the average user into a tech geek because they aren't creative enough to simplify the usage of a program. They themselves are text book geeks. Their programming is technically pretentious and perpetuates complexity. Programmers should keep the average user in mind, not the geeks. As we used to say back when I was taking classes: "User friendly" is "programmer hard". That is, not only do I have to figure out how it is to be done, but how it can be misunderstood, trap for those errors, and in addition, try to make it so that when they come up with the one way I hadn't considered, the program "dies gracefully." I don't know for sure how things are done at Microsoft, nor even how they are done at other companies these days, but back in the days before I retired, I worked in application development. Programmers didn't design the programs. It wasn't up to them to make programs "use, friendly," "simplify the usage of a program," "make the program die gracefully," or do anything else other than follow the directions of the designer of the program, the systems analyst. Assuming that Microsoft still works the same way, don't blame the programmers for things you don't like. The programmer follows the directions that the systems analyst designs, and the Quality Assurance department tests what he created to be sure that the programmer followed the design. If you don't like the results, the fault is that of either the systems analyst, QA, or both. I agree, and it's good the OP called this out. It's NOT the programmers fault! It's what they are "instructed" to do - by upper management. (Whether or not the customer wants the changes is another story). I had to add this since I think it's really unfair to blame the programmers. But what really should happen is for management to SEEK out customer input on all these changes, and not just drop them into the marketplace and let the chips fall where they may. A simple example being the Office Ribbon, and MS having the nerve to remove the option to disable it, in the later editions of Office. That is NOT listening to the customers - that is effectively dictating to them "the best way" to do things. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 17:48:26 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote: Ken Blake wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:06:05 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote: on Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:38:32 -0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: Good programmers creates intuitive programs. Bad programmers insist on turning the average user into a tech geek because they aren't creative enough to simplify the usage of a program. They themselves are text book geeks. Their programming is technically pretentious and perpetuates complexity. Programmers should keep the average user in mind, not the geeks. As we used to say back when I was taking classes: "User friendly" is "programmer hard". That is, not only do I have to figure out how it is to be done, but how it can be misunderstood, trap for those errors, and in addition, try to make it so that when they come up with the one way I hadn't considered, the program "dies gracefully." I don't know for sure how things are done at Microsoft, nor even how they are done at other companies these days, but back in the days before I retired, I worked in application development. Programmers didn't design the programs. It wasn't up to them to make programs "use, friendly," "simplify the usage of a program," "make the program die gracefully," or do anything else other than follow the directions of the designer of the program, the systems analyst. Assuming that Microsoft still works the same way, don't blame the programmers for things you don't like. The programmer follows the directions that the systems analyst designs, and the Quality Assurance department tests what he created to be sure that the programmer followed the design. If you don't like the results, the fault is that of either the systems analyst, QA, or both. I agree, and it's good the OP called this out. It's NOT the programmers fault! It's what they are "instructed" to do - by upper management. (Whether or not the customer wants the changes is another story). I had to add this since I think it's really unfair to blame the programmers. But what really should happen is for management to SEEK out customer input on all these changes, and not just drop them into the marketplace and let the chips fall where they may. A simple example being the Office Ribbon, and MS having the nerve to remove the option to disable it, in the later editions of Office. That is NOT listening to the customers - that is effectively dictating to them "the best way" to do things. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft does some things very well and some things very badly. "Not listening to the customers and effectively dictating to them 'the best way' to do things" is a good example of something they are terrible at. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
snip
As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft does some things very well and some things very badly. "Not listening to the customers and effectively dictating to them 'the best way' to do things" is a good example of something they are terrible at. Well said. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 17:48:26 -0600, Bill in Co wrote:
That is NOT listening to the customers - that is effectively dictating to them "the best way" to do things. But if Steve Jobs taught us anything, it's that customers don't know best. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
"mechanic" wrote
| That is NOT listening to the customers - that is effectively | dictating to them "the best way" to do things. | | But if Steve Jobs taught us anything, it's that customers don't know | best. No, he taught us that Steve Jobs thinks he knows better than anyone. There's a difference. He also taught us that customers can be suckered. Selling ice cream to diabetics means you're a good salesman. It doesn't mean you know best what the customer needs. He also demonstrated what I would call psychopathic fantasies of grandeur, combining extreme ambition with a car salesman's style and a half-baked, New Age notion of "spitirual" design. (Thus the cult.) There was a well known quote from Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker. The architect of Jobs's pretentious donut office building was discussing having windows that open. Jobs said he didn't want any windows to open and explained that if you let people open things it just allows them to screw things up. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all Is that really the kind of person you want teaching you things? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 09:11:09 -0400, Mayayana wrote:
"mechanic" wrote | That is NOT listening to the customers - that is effectively | dictating to them "the best way" to do things. | | But if Steve Jobs taught us anything, it's that customers don't know | best. No, he taught us that Steve Jobs thinks he knows better than anyone. Well he certainly made a lot more money than most of us! And a lot of that because he was an innovator, whereas the average Joe just sits and moans about his lot. But clearly any lesson from him is wasted on you. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
"mechanic" wrote
| No, he taught us that Steve Jobs thinks he | knows better than anyone. | | Well he certainly made a lot more money than most of us! And a lot | of that because he was an innovator, whereas the average Joe just | sits and moans about his lot. But clearly any lesson from him is | wasted on you. Indeed. I have no respect for Jobs. I'm not impressed by people who make lots of money. It's the sign of a nongenerous person who exploits others. There are very few ways to profit without doing it off the backs of others. In Jobs's case that's slave labor, hypnotized customers willing to pay too much, and dishonest lawsuits. Innovation? He eliminated options and as I understand it, Johnny Ive did most of the actual design. But I will give Jobs credit for a certain aesthetic sense. Apple products are beautiful to look at, for the most part. Is it innovation to create a bauble that allows all of young America to walk around with constant pop music in their heads? I'd call that exploitation. On the other hand, Jobs probably didn't know any better, thinking it was "enlightened" to merely make things that please people. From the same link I linked earlier, a typical story of how Jobs thought everything was his brainstorm: [MS came out with Windows, using a similar GUI to Macs]... ---------------------------------------------- Jobs was outraged and summoned Gates from Seattle to Apple's Silicon Valley headquarters. "They met in Jobs's conference room, where Gates found himself surrounded by ten Apple employees who were eager to watch their boss assail him," Isaacson writes. "Jobs didn't disappoint his troops. 'You're ripping us off!' he shouted. 'I trusted you, and now you're stealing from us!' " Gates looked back at Jobs calmly. Everyone knew where the windows and the icons came from. "Well, Steve," Gates responded. "I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it." --------------------------------------------- In any case, I wonder why you're arguing so stridently to make the case that product makers shouldn't produce products that you want. You started out equating Jobs's anti-social arrogance with brilliance, because he didn't listen to customers. Would he have done worse if he'd tried to do what people wanted. Maybe going along with Wozniak's desire to give people more control? Maybe. Maybe not. It would have been a different product. As it is, I have no interest in any of their products and have never bought one. So I don't find them especially brilliant. Just pretty. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
Mike S wrote:
snip As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft does some things very well and some things very badly. "Not listening to the customers and effectively dictating to them 'the best way' to do things" is a good example of something they are terrible at. Well said. Ditto. -- Quote of the Week: "Look not to the windmill's turning while the ant still burrows." --unknown Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly. /\___/\Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / http://antfarm.ma.cx / /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit- | |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link. \ _ / ( ) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
On 8/22/2018 12:34 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"mechanic" wrote | No, he taught us that Steve Jobs thinks he | knows better than anyone. | | Well he certainly made a lot more money than most of us! And a lot | of that because he was an innovator, whereas the average Joe just | sits and moans about his lot. But clearly any lesson from him is | wasted on you. Indeed. I have no respect for Jobs. I'm not impressed by people who make lots of money. It's the sign of a nongenerous person who exploits others. There are very few ways to profit without doing it off the backs of others. In Jobs's case that's slave labor, hypnotized customers willing to pay too much, and dishonest lawsuits. Innovation? He eliminated options and as I understand it, Johnny Ive did most of the actual design. But I will give Jobs credit for a certain aesthetic sense. Apple products are beautiful to look at, for the most part. Is it innovation to create a bauble that allows all of young America to walk around with constant pop music in their heads? I'd call that exploitation. On the other hand, Jobs probably didn't know any better, thinking it was "enlightened" to merely make things that please people. From the same link I linked earlier, a typical story of how Jobs thought everything was his brainstorm: [MS came out with Windows, using a similar GUI to Macs]... ---------------------------------------------- Jobs was outraged and summoned Gates from Seattle to Apple's Silicon Valley headquarters. "They met in Jobs's conference room, where Gates found himself surrounded by ten Apple employees who were eager to watch their boss assail him," Isaacson writes. "Jobs didn't disappoint his troops. 'You're ripping us off!' he shouted. 'I trusted you, and now you're stealing from us!' " Gates looked back at Jobs calmly. Everyone knew where the windows and the icons came from. "Well, Steve," Gates responded. "I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it." --------------------------------------------- In any case, I wonder why you're arguing so stridently to make the case that product makers shouldn't produce products that you want. You started out equating Jobs's anti-social arrogance with brilliance, because he didn't listen to customers. Would he have done worse if he'd tried to do what people wanted. Maybe going along with Wozniak's desire to give people more control? Maybe. Maybe not. It would have been a different product. As it is, I have no interest in any of their products and have never bought one. So I don't find them especially brilliant. Just pretty. Asking customers what they want is an exercise in futility. Sure, you need to ask, but the answer likely won't help you. Back in the day, I was responsible for designing logic analyzers. When we asked customers what they wanted, the answer was almost always the same, "faster, wider, deeper". A much better tactic is EMPATHY. You don't ask what they want. You ask what they are doing, how they're doing it, what's costing them money, what industry trends do they predict. Then, YOU decide what the industry needs. YOU have to understand enough about THEIR industry, problems, and opportunities to INNOVATE for them. Instead of giving them more memory to sort thru, we gave them triggering capability that let the analyzer give them the ANSWER they needed. You can bounce the ideas off critical customers, but that gives away the store to the competitors. The problem with all that is that it is very difficult to find people who can do that. When you add the requirement that they be able to convince management that their idea deserves funding, the pool dries up rapidly. The shortcut is to be the founder. That strips away all the roadblocks. People who know HOW to do are plentiful. People who know WHAT to do are rare. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The transition from Windows XP to Windows 7
"mike" wrote
| Asking customers what they want is an exercise in futility. | Sure, you need to ask, but the answer likely won't help you. | | Back in the day, I was responsible for designing logic analyzers. | When we asked customers what they wanted, the answer was almost | always the same, "faster, wider, deeper". | | A much better tactic is EMPATHY. | You don't ask what they want. You ask what they are doing, | how they're doing it, what's costing them money, what industry | trends do they predict. Then, YOU decide what the industry | needs. YOU have to understand enough about THEIR industry, | problems, and opportunities to INNOVATE for them. | I suppose that's true in anything. People usually want something specific but often are not conscious of it or don't have the words. As a contractor I consider it my job to figure out what people want and give it to them, whether or not they can articulate it. If you can't do that you end up with a lot of angry people, because they thought they told you what they wanted. But that's all within the realm of serving the customer. I think the Jobs approach was more like the spoiled architect who makes promouncements based on his or her alleged genius. Frank Lloyd Wright comes to mind. He was highly regarded as a genius, but he knew little about building proper structures and his clients were really hiring him because they worshipped him. He prescribed how they should live in order to partake of his rarefied sensibility. That came to mind because I read last week that the engineer who had stopped Falling Water from falling had died recently. He had to do extensive reinforcing because Wright was too arrogant to admit to himself that he actually didn't know how to build with concrete. Like Jobs, he was too proud to be a normal person. He had to be an "artist". Another example is Frank Gehry. He told MIT they could do whatever they wanted inside his building, as long as he controlled the outside. And control it he did. It looks like a funhouse. https://thetech.com/2007/11/09/lawsuit-v127-n53 Rooves that drain the wrong way.... Very dumb design mistakes. But that's not his problem. He's an artist. Laws of nature and desires of the people who pay him are beneath his regard. MIT sued him over it. But they had no one but themselves to blame in hiring such a diva. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|