General MS attitude toward design

[Guest]

I'm a power user. I've been using PCs since MS-DOS-Only days. Rather than
just rant like several I've seen, I'm going to try and be constructive. I
hold no hope it will have an affect, but I'll feel better if I say it.

I just purchased a new custom built Vista Ultimate Machine with 3Ghz
Core2Duo 2GB RAM. I also purchased Office Pro and am a very heavy Access
user in my work. In general, there are many things I like about Vista. So
far I like the new Office UI and am warming to the new Vista UI as well. I
am (though old and experienced) pretty open minded to changes and the
evolution of the products. In my view, MS has a single fatal flaw that
prevents them from being premier at anything but marketing and monopolizing.
That is - their fundamental design assumption that they always know what's
best and generally refuse to allow anyone else to have a divergent opinion.
I truly understand and appreciate the need for so many wizards. I understand
that most PC users need guidance and support. In my view, however, it is
unforgivable that there are not easy-access 'portals' for advanced users.
We're not all beginners!

I work with massive Access databases all day every day as a software
consultant with a client list that includes several Fortune 500 companies. I
nearly cried when I first opened my databases on my new monster machine to
discover that they were MUCH slower to respond than on the 4-year-old XP
machine I replaced. Patiently I searched and tweaked until I removed
virtually every kind of error checking and 'let Microsoft do it for you'
option I could find. Performance is now acceptable but certainly
disappointing and I have no doubt there is much going on behind the scenes
that is nothing more than unnecessary bloat for my purposes that I wish I
could eliminate.

The ultimate impetus for this post however is the truly disgusting backup
utility. Talk about dumbed down! Once again, I truly do understand the need
to make things simple for the average user. There is no possible viable
explanation, however, for why there is no 'advanced' mode where I can ignore
your wizard and specify how and what I want backed up specifically. I have a
150mb program drive and a terra byte for data. I want to CHOOSE what gets
backed up so I don't have buy a server farm for my backups! I've been
writing software for 30 years. I know what it takes for you to create all
those wizards and try to make things user-friendly. I also know that it
would not be a big deal, by comparison, to add the kind of flexibility
customers like me require. Once again.... I'm going to have to go buy a 3rd
party product for something that MS really has no excuse not to provide.
This example is, I believe, indicative a general MS flaw in design approach
applicable to all your products. Simplify it all you want... but for
heaven's sake get out of my way! Let me do what I need to do. I know
you've heard this before. Every time a new Windows comes out I foolishly
hold out a little hope that MS finally gets it and realizes that all their
customers are not new to PCs and has incorporated that concept into their
software. Every time, I'm disappointed again. Sigh.


----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...056&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general

 

[Adam Leinss]

This example is, I believe, indicative a general MS flaw in design
approach applicable to all your products. Simplify it all you
want... but for heaven's sake get out of my way! Let me do what I
need to do. I know you've heard this before. Every time a new
Windows comes out I foolishly hold out a little hope that MS
finally gets it and realizes that all their customers are not new
to PCs and has incorporated that concept into their software.
Every time, I'm disappointed again. Sigh.

Here's Microsoft's answer:
(http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/07/28/54583.aspx)

Why doesn't Windows have an "expert mode"?

We often get requests like this:

There should be a slider bar somewhere, say on the Performance
Tab, that ranges from Novice to Advanced. At the highest level, all
the geek settings are turned on. At the Novice level, all the
settings for beginners are turned on. In between, we can gradually
enable stuff.

We've been trying to do something like this since even before Windows
95, and it doesn't work.

It doesn't work because somebody who is a whiz at Excel will rate
themselves as Advanced even though they can't tell a CPU from a box
of Cracker Jacks.

They're not stupid. They really are advanced users. Just not advanced
at the skill we're asking them about.

And before you go mocking the non-geeks: Even geeks don't know
everything. I know a lot about GUI programming, but I only know a
little about disk partitioning, and I don't know squat about Active
Directory. So am I an expert?

Adam

 

[Adam Albright]

Let me do what I need to do. I know
you've heard this before. Every time a new Windows comes out I foolishly
hold out a little hope that MS finally gets it and realizes that all their
customers are not new to PCs and has incorporated that concept into their
software. Every time, I'm disappointed again. Sigh.

You summed it up rather well. A lot of experienced users kept their
fingers crossed that the latest version of Windows would actually be a
REAL improvement over the last and we get conned into upgrading only
to be disappointed all over again.

I guess it is just wishful thinking to expect that with all the
resources Microsoft has and supposedly the talent and obviously the
cash they actually would be capable of making a MAJOR improvement in
Windows. Instead they push bloatware out the door, not really tested
and crying out for a service pack and still plagued with all kinds of
security issues.

One thing about software in general. There is the right way to write
it, a wrong way and Microsoft's way which is take it or leave it. They
simply don't listen to their customers, take us for granted, are
arrogant, stumbling and just do enough to squeak by. The business plan
at Microsoft is to excel at mediocrity. When you think about it
Microsoft models itself after the government. You don't really expect
them to do a great job, just hope they don't really screw up. Of
course with the Bush Administration you DO expect them to screw up
since they have seven years practice doing exactly that, still you
keep your fingers crossed they won't be responsible for any more major
blunders. Yea right, sure I believe that. <snicker>

 

[Guest]

I agree and understand that users often over-rate their own skills. It is
not Microsoft's job, however, to save them from themselves at the expense of
those who really need the advanced capabilities. It's a bogus reply - and
proves my original point that that the MS 'attitude' toward software design
is flawed. They really don't get the concept as a corporation -- and they're
wrong. They literally look down to their users and build to the lowest
common denominator. I still could understand that if they simply allowed
those of us who know what we're doing to be able to do it. Forget a slider,
Microsoft. The decision and coding process around what goes where on the
slider would be impossible to well-implement. Just give us an 'expert' mode
and let the user decide whether or not to take the risk. Put all the
discalimers up you want. The fear-mongering should scare most away but still
allow the real geeks to do what they need to do.

 

[Guest]

You summed it up rather well. A lot of experienced users kept their

fingers crossed that the latest version of Windows would actually be a
REAL improvement over the last and we get conned into upgrading only
to be disappointed all over again.

Thanks. The problem, though, that we're not really conned -- we're forced.
The planned obsolescence gives us no choice but to eventually upgrade!

 

[Tie Various]

Vista has the worst design, its a darn right CATASTROPHY... it has been such
a disappointment...

I WANT TO PUKE WHENEVER I AM FORCED TO USE HORRIBLE VISTA!!!!

Other STUPID designs are :
Windows Media player 11 (part of vista but available also on XP)
IE7 (part of vista but available also on XP)
The office 2007 Ribbon toolbars
Windows Live Mail Desktop (this is hideous)

 

[...winston]

Pat, I agree that each o/s should offer improvements over the prior in
functionality and security.
The Vista Backup method might not provide the flexibility you desire,
though it is better than the prior o/s included applications.

I'm not sure I necessarily buy the entitlement part regarding backup
tools especially when other third party sources have been providing
products with a history of satisfied customers, obvious success,
programming and tech support resources and long term experience.

Imo, it also would seem obvious, that in running any business supporting
Fortune 500 clients that industry proven backup software protecting
important data would be a default choice rather than rely on a tool
bundled with an operating system.

 

[Guest]

It's not about the backup tool. That was just an example. The point is that
the tool exists and it would a perfectly acceptable tool to use if MS simply
LET me use it. The roadblocks they put in the way cost time an money to
build. I'm perfectly capable of deciding on adequate backup methodology
without ANY tool, 3rd party or MS, to rely on.... good heaven's were only
copying data after all. I'd say that's a pretty basic OS function and I've
used manual copying for many years to control my own backups without a
problem.

My point is the attitude that says I'll spend all the money it takes to do
it the way I (MS) think it ought to be done - but not one cent toward
flexibility or any real user control. Of course this is an over
generalization, but as an MS customer for decades, it is undoubtedly the
prevailing way that software has been, is, and will - apparently - continue
to be developed at MS. Pity.

Words like 'improvement' and 'better' are like "beauty". They are in the
eye of the beholder. In general, what MS calls 'improvement' is more what I
would call 'bloat' with little value to me or other advanced users. I am not
ranting. This is quite simply a fact in my rather extensive experience.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"PUKE WHENEVER I AM FORCED TO USE"
Another ridiculous comment.
No one forced you.
You made the choice.
The fact you complain so much in general and complain about being
"FORCED" displays something of the processes you use in making
choices.

No one has been forced to use Windows Vista.
Exercise your choice, most everyone else does.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"we're forced"
Not at all.
We all have a choice and if Windows Vista does not suit you, there is
no reason why you should use it.

Windows XP computers will continue to be sold well into next year and
Windows XP will probably be supported for several years after that.

Of course you are right, no one is conned either since all the
necessary information is available.
Everyone is free to choose Windows Vista, Windows XP or any of the
many operating systems from other sources.

 

[Guest]

You've got to be kidding. Really? As a mater of fact, I have owned Macs in
the past and I currently run my own Linux Server. Computers and OS's are
only good for running software. The best software for my business needs runs
under Windows... period. I'm not saying Windows isn't a good product. I'm
not saying Office isn't a good product. That doesn't mean it can't be better
and address the needs of a wider audience. If one wants to run Windows
software, one is 'forced' to buy Windows. If one wants to avoid an upgrade -
your only avenue would be to write all your own drivers and applications
because the existing stuff stops working. I'm sorry but in this reality, you
are quite simply mistaken. Certainly XP is not obsolete at the moment but it
will be. I never claimed that the force point was this moment in time.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Pat;
"If one wants to run Windows software"
The key word is "wants", you and not Microsoft or anyone else choose.
If the program is the driving force, contact the manufacturer for
other options.
Change programs to one supported by the operating system you choose.

"because the existing stuff stops working"
What stops working?
None of my hardware, software or operating systems stop working.
The closest I have been to stop working is trial or anti virus
software.
And none of the AV I have used are from Microsoft, well I have Windows
Live One Care on one computer mostly for testing.

Exactly who is forcing you and what can you do about it?
For the present, not Microsoft at all, and possibly several years
before Windows XP support ends.
Until the have choices and nearly full control.

 

[Guest]

There is no comparable software for any other OS in the PC realm. Perhaps
you think it's possible to run today's software and hardware on Windows
3.1.... but I think you're mistaken. MS is the only game in town - you can
deny it all you want but it's still a fact. I laud MS for a great product
and for finding the market as they have. Fine... I mispoke. The operative
word should have been "need" instead of "want". If I want to make a living
then I need MS Access. Perhaps my making a living is optional to you. I
have no choice -- and I have no choice but to follow the MS product line. I
am not complaining -- I am stating a fact. I even do not agree with the rant
that said "Windows sucks". I feel quite the contrary and think it's a great
product. This all started as a "suggestion" as invited by the forum. Even a
great product can get better. I still hold a strong well-informed opinion
that Windows could be an even better product if MS would allow those who need
more control to have it.

 

[Kerry Brown]

I'm a power user. I've been using PCs since MS-DOS-Only days. Rather
than
just rant like several I've seen, I'm going to try and be constructive. I
hold no hope it will have an affect, but I'll feel better if I say it.

I just purchased a new custom built Vista Ultimate Machine with 3Ghz
Core2Duo 2GB RAM. I also purchased Office Pro and am a very heavy Access
user in my work. In general, there are many things I like about Vista.
So
far I like the new Office UI and am warming to the new Vista UI as well.
I
am (though old and experienced) pretty open minded to changes and the
evolution of the products. In my view, MS has a single fatal flaw that
prevents them from being premier at anything but marketing and
monopolizing.
That is - their fundamental design assumption that they always know what's
best and generally refuse to allow anyone else to have a divergent
opinion.
I truly understand and appreciate the need for so many wizards. I
understand
that most PC users need guidance and support. In my view, however, it is
unforgivable that there are not easy-access 'portals' for advanced users.
We're not all beginners!

I work with massive Access databases all day every day as a software
consultant with a client list that includes several Fortune 500 companies.
I
nearly cried when I first opened my databases on my new monster machine to
discover that they were MUCH slower to respond than on the 4-year-old XP
machine I replaced. Patiently I searched and tweaked until I removed
virtually every kind of error checking and 'let Microsoft do it for you'
option I could find. Performance is now acceptable but certainly
disappointing and I have no doubt there is much going on behind the scenes
that is nothing more than unnecessary bloat for my purposes that I wish I
could eliminate.

The ultimate impetus for this post however is the truly disgusting backup
utility. Talk about dumbed down! Once again, I truly do understand the
need
to make things simple for the average user. There is no possible viable
explanation, however, for why there is no 'advanced' mode where I can
ignore
your wizard and specify how and what I want backed up specifically. I
have a
150mb program drive and a terra byte for data. I want to CHOOSE what gets
backed up so I don't have buy a server farm for my backups! I've been
writing software for 30 years. I know what it takes for you to create all
those wizards and try to make things user-friendly. I also know that it
would not be a big deal, by comparison, to add the kind of flexibility
customers like me require. Once again.... I'm going to have to go buy a
3rd
party product for something that MS really has no excuse not to provide.
This example is, I believe, indicative a general MS flaw in design
approach
applicable to all your products. Simplify it all you want... but for
heaven's sake get out of my way! Let me do what I need to do. I know
you've heard this before. Every time a new Windows comes out I foolishly
hold out a little hope that MS finally gets it and realizes that all their
customers are not new to PCs and has incorporated that concept into their
software. Every time, I'm disappointed again. Sigh.

As computers become consumer devices the OS is getting dumbed down. Take a
look at Apple products. They've always been that way. The version of Linux
most often pushed in this newsgroup by the trolls is Ubuntu, which is also
the most dumbed down distro going. PC's are becoming consumer devices. As
with any consumer devices if you want to avoid a dumbed down interface you
have to modify the consumer device or buy a high end pro device. For an OS
this would Windows server or the something like the Red Hat distro for
Linux. I don't know of an equivalent for macs, maybe delete OS X and install
one of the other BSD variants.

 

[Guest]

I couldn't agree more, Kerry. That's why I made the suggestion. I don't see
any reason why we can't have both in the same OS. All I suggested was to go
ahead and dumb it down all you want.... but leave power users some options
for more control. It's really not much to ask and is still a valid
suggestion. Some have taken it as a complaint - it was not.

 

[HeyBub]

I agree and understand that users often over-rate their own skills.
It is not Microsoft's job, however, to save them from themselves at
the expense of those who really need the advanced capabilities. It's
a bogus reply - and proves my original point that that the MS
'attitude' toward software design is flawed. They really don't get
the concept as a corporation -- and they're wrong. They literally
look down to their users and build to the lowest common denominator.
I still could understand that if they simply allowed those of us who
know what we're doing to be able to do it. Forget a slider,
Microsoft. The decision and coding process around what goes where on
the slider would be impossible to well-implement. Just give us an
'expert' mode and let the user decide whether or not to take the
risk. Put all the discalimers up you want. The fear-mongering should
scare most away but still allow the real geeks to do what they need
to do.

They "get" the concept. MS has psychologists, teachers, therapists,
designers, PhDs in every discipline from toad-watching to inter-stellar
travel. They model, interact, test, publish, survey, alpha test, and beta
test. They even use their own product!

What you see, I believe, is, in Microsoft's judgement, the best compromise
of the sometimes competing philosophies.

I'm pretty sure they're not ignoring you or your concerns, but you're just
one voice. They have literally MILLIONS of voices encouraging various
solutions.

I don't know how they picked the version they did: majority vote, whim,
theocracy, decibels, or what, but pick they did.

 

[...winston]

My response was to address the example which stated that the 'impetus' for
the post was the back up tool.
Expectation doesn't necessarily equate with everyone's requirements.
I'm still curious. Which 3rd party application will be your choice ?

 

[McG.]

I agree and understand that users often over-rate their own skills. It is
not Microsoft's job, however, to save them from themselves at the expense
of
those who really need the advanced capabilities. It's a bogus reply - and
proves my original point that that the MS 'attitude' toward software
design
is flawed. They really don't get the concept as a corporation -- and
they're
wrong. They literally look down to their users and build to the lowest
common denominator.

I disagree there. They're in it for the money, remember? M$ is a
business, first and always. They build to the greatest common denominator.
That isn't necessarily the lowest. It's also a rather nasty indicator of
where WE are as a society of Users.
McG.

 

[Guest]

I put together a very thoughtful response but got kicked out when I pushed
'submit'. So--- to paraphrase...

I agree with you about what an OS should be. I'd argrue that Windows hasn't
been that for a very long time. Yes Vista is a great product but it is MUCH
more than an OS. Give me a bare bones OS with great 3rd party software any
day. Windows hasn't been that for a very long time. and OS doesn't come
bundled with a Media Center.... or a Web Browser.... or a backup utility...
or any other of the almost-useful tools. And 'efficient' ?!?!?!? That has
never been a high value for Windows. Linux is an OS. I like Linux too.
Linux has absolutely no way to compete with the vast array of great software
available for Windows. Any computer/OS combo is worthless unless it can run
the software you need. Windows has the best in spades for my needs. There
are really no competitors.

Forget the backup tool. It was only meant as an example. I'm much more
disappointed in Access performance. Yes they are different design teams but
it all wears the MS brand and is all indicative of the MS philosophy. Strong
consistency in this philosophy across their primary suite of products for
many years is proof of that. I'm simply suggesting that Windows would be
even better than it already is if it allowed for a little more control by
those end-users who need it. This was a suggestion box submission after all.
It was an idea for improvement.

 

[McG.]

I'm a power user. I've been using PCs since MS-DOS-Only days. Rather
than
just rant like several I've seen, I'm going to try and be constructive. I
hold no hope it will have an affect, but I'll feel better if I say it.

I just purchased a new custom built Vista Ultimate Machine with 3Ghz
Core2Duo 2GB RAM. I also purchased Office Pro and am a very heavy Access
user in my work. In general, there are many things I like about Vista.
So
far I like the new Office UI and am warming to the new Vista UI as well.
I
am (though old and experienced) pretty open minded to changes and the
evolution of the products. In my view, MS has a single fatal flaw that
prevents them from being premier at anything but marketing and
monopolizing.
That is - their fundamental design assumption that they always know what's
best and generally refuse to allow anyone else to have a divergent
opinion.
I truly understand and appreciate the need for so many wizards. I
understand
that most PC users need guidance and support. In my view, however, it is
unforgivable that there are not easy-access 'portals' for advanced users.
We're not all beginners!

I work with massive Access databases all day every day as a software
consultant with a client list that includes several Fortune 500 companies.
I
nearly cried when I first opened my databases on my new monster machine to
discover that they were MUCH slower to respond than on the 4-year-old XP
machine I replaced. Patiently I searched and tweaked until I removed
virtually every kind of error checking and 'let Microsoft do it for you'
option I could find. Performance is now acceptable but certainly
disappointing and I have no doubt there is much going on behind the scenes
that is nothing more than unnecessary bloat for my purposes that I wish I
could eliminate.

The ultimate impetus for this post however is the truly disgusting backup
utility. Talk about dumbed down! Once again, I truly do understand the
need
to make things simple for the average user. There is no possible viable
explanation, however, for why there is no 'advanced' mode where I can
ignore
your wizard and specify how and what I want backed up specifically. I
have a
150mb program drive and a terra byte for data. I want to CHOOSE what gets
backed up so I don't have buy a server farm for my backups! I've been
writing software for 30 years. I know what it takes for you to create all
those wizards and try to make things user-friendly. I also know that it
would not be a big deal, by comparison, to add the kind of flexibility
customers like me require. Once again.... I'm going to have to go buy a
3rd
party product for something that MS really has no excuse not to provide.
This example is, I believe, indicative a general MS flaw in design
approach
applicable to all your products. Simplify it all you want... but for
heaven's sake get out of my way! Let me do what I need to do. I know
you've heard this before. Every time a new Windows comes out I foolishly
hold out a little hope that MS finally gets it and realizes that all their
customers are not new to PCs and has incorporated that concept into their
software. Every time, I'm disappointed again. Sigh.


----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...056&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general

I don't think you're looking at the problem quite right Pat. Actually I
really think your expectations of the Operating System itself are
unrealistic. I hold MS OS operations responsible for providing a solid,
safe, efficient environment for me to run the 3rd party software I've
purchased to work with. Or have fun with. That's for the OS part. For MS
Office, I am looking for productivity using the programs. I'm not looking
for the OS to provide me programs. Just the environment to run programs in.
I don't think that Vista is responsible for the problems Access has. The
team that code Access is. I don't think that Vista is responsible for how
my Steam games run. I think Valve Software is. Steam and games run fine in
Vista, btw, Valve did their job pretty well.
I've been "computering around" since September 1982. I learned Z80 Assembly
before there was ever a "Microsoft" or "DOS". I am not nor do I want to be
a "programmer".
Vista is a bit different from M$ normal take on things. I'll say honestly,
that I've only used Vista a few days. And honestly, it's likely the best
work Micro$oft has ever done. I am no M$ fanboi. Having used some Unix
systems and even run Linux distros myself, I know where Microsofts greatest
shortcoming has been with every operating system they've produced. Until
Vista. It is with the lax user security system in all versions of Windows.
Users had a free for all for decades. And M$ as well as the users have paid
a hard price for that. Now the user is confronted with a few strict
security measures right up front. Most don't like it, they aren't used to
that.
M$ satellite industries, Office (and Access) for example, are now having to
also play catch up to Vista. Some software devs are doing a better job of
it than others. Sounds like the Access devs are a bit behind.
But it is still the program developers I hold responsible for the
performance of their software in any environment they code it for.

Really now, is it that there is someone "to blame" in all this? I don't
think so. I also don't think that laying the decades long burden on M$ OS
you have for the softwares performance is appropriate, nor constructive.

McG.