| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Windows XP has saved industry money, says Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 09:36 EST/14:36 GMT | News Source: ZDNet UK | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Putting Windows onto one code base has saved the IT industry pots of cash, according to Windows supremo Brian Vallentine Windows XP, which is replacing Windows 98 and putting the Microsoft desktop on a single code-base, "will save the industry a huge amount of money," said Brian Valentine at IT Forum in Copenhagen. "With Windows 98 and Windows 2000, equipment makers need to make two sets of device drivers and application vendors had to create two versions of their applications." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:02:21 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 9640 (195.92.194.17) at 11/22/2002 11:57:12 AM |
|
What about the cost to end users? who are the real customers.
I feel sorry for anyone who has just bought Windows ME! Upgrading from Windows 98 to XP will probably mean a PC upgrade. No wonder there is so much interest in Linux on the desktop. http://lee.ic24.net/ |
| #2 By 1643 (131.107.3.92) at 11/22/2002 12:55:56 PM |
|
It costs $99 dollars to upgrade...and is worth every penny IMHO from 98.
If you need a HW upgrade, there is no "magic" way to increase your HW speed to use all the new features and benifits of the OS...but you can get the following for $399 (or $299 if you factor out the license cost which you would have to buy anyway): Emachines - 1.7 GHZ Cel, 128MB, 40GB, CD, Sound, NIC, 56K, USB 2.0, XP Home. |
| #3 By 3465 (65.36.86.101) at 11/22/2002 1:00:24 PM |
| thank goodness I only have a few clients who have windows xp. I've had to dump all the eye candy and make it as windows 2000 as possible. |
| #4 By 1643 (131.107.3.92) at 11/22/2002 1:08:28 PM |
|
Kirk26,
While you make like the look and feel of Win2k, it has been shown in numerous usability studies that normal users are more productive with the 'Luna' GUI. This is the problem with tech people in general, they believe there is only one right way...and it's always theirs. :) |
| #5 By 3465 (65.36.86.101) at 11/22/2002 1:13:23 PM |
| bah humbug |
| #6 By 1643 (131.107.3.92) at 11/22/2002 1:14:08 PM |
| Point proven ;) |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/22/2002 1:59:53 PM |
| The thing I've found with XP is the more RAM the better. I've run it on 300 Mhz machines with 256 Megs of RAM, and it works fine. Still faster than Win98. |
| #8 By 1643 (207.46.137.250) at 11/22/2002 2:44:25 PM |
| And with 256MB of Kingston DDR ram for under $50 bucks...it's a cheap and easy way to upgrade the performance of any OS. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/22/2002 3:15:22 PM |
|
kirk, luna kicks booty. There is a huge difference between eye candy and easy on the eyes. The idea behind "Luna" is a more pleasant experience. When you see softer tones, more rounded edges, you are more at ease and as a result more able to work - hence more productive.
Using clasic mode isn't making Windows XP look like Windows 2000, it is making it look like Windows 95. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/22/2002 4:24:00 PM |
|
Bob, I've stuck with Luna, but I don't find the default blue soothing at all. It's bright and highly contrasting to white/gray space (which is where you usually want to focus). Everybody talks about the blue of Aqua as if it goes crazy, but on average there is more blue blue on my screen on the PC than there is the softer Aqua on an X desktop which is actually mostly white. I found the blue in Luna is usually non-functional space as well (except the taskbar) but it draws my eye whereas the blue in Aqua is always a functional element (buttons, scroll bars).
Beyond that I find huge problems--every interface is entirely inconsistent, even within apps. Check out how some apps have rectangular flat buttons, some have rectangular but beveled 3D buttons, some have rounded edges and are flat, some are rounded and 3D, and plenty have quite the mix. That's a simple example but it gets much worse. On top of that, not talking about visuals, the interface is much more confusing... You know that I dislike and find taskbars obtrusive, but other features seem tucked away in much more bizarre and unexpected locations. I'm sick of looking in five different spots for some things, and that's frequently how it happens--the place that I least expect to contain the feature (the place that's fourth or fifth on my list of most likely locations) is where it's at. I don't expect everyone to think as I do, but I'm pretty savvy to WIndows and know where to look--if I'm finding things on more fourth or fifth try, that's not a good interface. |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 11/22/2002 4:58:51 PM |
|
Hmm, I guess I don't have any problems with the color schemes. The silver used by Aqua doesn't give enough contrast to important features like buttons and window borders, which makes it difficult to work with. I find the same is true if I switch the WinXP desktop to silver. I much prefer the blue or green.
As far as the inconsistent interface, that is because Microsoft doesn't mandate UI design features down people's throats like Apple. This allows for innovation on the part of the application developers. It's led to a variety of interesting UI features found in applications which have since been utilized by Apple, Microsoft, etc and put into the OS. However, it is advisable, that you follow the Microsoft UI design standards, especially if you aren't creative enough to come up with a better idea. They are published... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1556156790/002-3347086-6828029 I've definately not had any problems finding features, at least not in the OS. Everything is exactly where I expect to find it in the control panel. Although I do switch back to the classic interface instead of the wizard interface as I find it more efficient. I will agree in some applications I have difficulty finding features, as they are not in the menu where I expect it. One of the things I liked about WordPro when it came out was the context sensitive right-button menus. Click on anything in your document, right click on it and you had all the properties that pertained to it. In Word, for instance, it's not always consistent. I was trying to select a cell in a table and there is no way to do this without going to the top menu. |
| #12 By 931 (66.156.4.206) at 11/23/2002 2:17:23 AM |
|
[This is the problem with tech people in general, they believe there is only one right way...and it's always theirs. :) ]
umm no some of belive that keeping a vast majority of the uses on one interface saves us support calls and confusion during such calls... |
| #13 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/23/2002 2:18:33 AM |
|
Sodajerk, I agree with your statement about the inconsistency of the interface. It is inconsistent, for better or worse--better for those developers that want to be GUI lone rangers and ignore convention, worse for those of us that would prefer those developers to stick with convention and give up their grand vision for the perfect user interface for their program. WordPerfect, for example, has mouse-overs for every button and selection item in every dialog box. We also have several programs that use a Windows 3.1-style GUI. Sometimes the wheel mouse works in the menus in that program, sometimes it doesn't. It's a toss-up between flexibility plus backwards compatibility and consistency. You simply can't give developers all the flexibility they want in creating a UI and expect a consistent interface, especially over time as UIs become more robust.
That said, you would hope that Microsoft has consistency at least through its own products. For the most part, they do a fair job. However, between OS versions, I always end up saying to myself "Ok, where did they put ____ this time???" It never takes me long to find it, but it is a bit frustrating to have things differ between versions like that... particularly in supporting it! It's always fun having someone call me regarding their home computer with Windows 95... it taxes my memory to remember where exactly to find what. To some degree, it's like anything else, though--once you work on it, it becomes second nature to you (although sometimes you forget details about the previous versions on which you worked, of course... a bit of interference learning, for sure...). What is a very large pain, though, is writing instructions for each OS for simple modifications. Each OS is very similar, but the little differences mean the step-by-step instructions are different for each OS--what a pain! This is true with every OS for which I've written instructions, but Windows seems to suffer from this to a greater extent than others. |
| #14 By 7754 (209.98.24.241) at 11/23/2002 3:19:36 PM |
|
bob670, I fully support Microsoft making improvements as well, but at the same time, I don't think there should be any praise for making it hard to support multiple versions of Windows. I have no aversion to hard work, but I don't expect nor want Microsoft to make changes for the sake of job security or a higher paycheck.
I don't mind writing up instructions for end users, but in the end, it's a disservice to them--support folks get confused (understandably) with different versions (giving wrong advice as well as navigating support callers through windows for another version, only to have to go through the process again for the correct version), and end users often don't know what version they are running (some aren't adept with computers), making it difficult or time-consuming to provide support. Essentially, it's time and money wasted, both for end users and support staff. |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 11/24/2002 4:21:32 AM |
|
Moving from NT4 to Win2k involved a few challenges. Some things were done differently with regards to support. Modems for instance, network connections, various policy objects and so forth. But the changes were made in such a way as to make Win2k vastly superior to administer than NT4.
As for WinXP... Nothing changed from Win2k. The same registry entries exist, the same control panel objects exist. The same policies, the same file structure. There were some new additions, but they fit into the existing structure well and were easy to pick up. People who are complaining about WinXP being difficult obviously come from a Win9x environment. You know what? Moving from Win95 knowledge to NT4 knowledge was difficult. Things behaved differently. Not as far as the enduser was concerned, but certainly as far as the support staff was concerned. But, I have to ask... Whose fault was that? You knew this was coming. Microsoft stated back in 1996 that they were going to eliminate the Win9x platform and standardize on NT. I heard the same complaints moving from Win3.1 to Win95. It's a recurring trend through the industry. Unfortunately one of the things which keeps people working with Linux is because they are uncomfortable with change, and Linux behaves more like the way computers did in the 80's, so they don't have to learn anything new, anything difficult... I don't have much sympathy for that argument. |
| #16 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 11/24/2002 2:37:36 PM |
|
gg - I brought it up because it's a recurring theme amongst Linux proponents. The theme being one of avoiding change by grasping onto the past, as bob670 just said. Don't try to confuse the issue by claiming something other than what I said.
|
| #17 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 11/24/2002 5:21:40 PM |
|
gg - I think you've just proven my point. Some people in the tech industry are afraid of change, and will hold onto old concepts even when they are riduculously outdated.
|
| #18 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 11/24/2002 7:10:14 PM |
|
gg - You wish to start an argument, and I don't see the point.
Again as bob670 said, there are far too many people in the tech industry uncomfortable with learning new skills, and so they resist change. The Linux proponents are just one such example. |
| #19 By 7754 (209.98.24.241) at 11/24/2002 8:55:42 PM |
|
Bob670--I'll give you a concrete example of what I mean--dial-up networking. The dialogs are different in every single version of Windows. Most users want instructions that tell them "1. Click on Start>Settings>Control Panel. Double click on ___ icon. ... 5. Click next. ... 11. Click Finish." etc. If they get to a dialog that's a little different, some users give up. I realize that some of these things need to change, but there are definitely some questionable changes. For example--why did they remove Dial-up Networking from My Computer in Windows XP? What on earth difference does it make for Microsoft to make that change? It was a quick shortcut to Dial-up Networking before, but now the quickest way there is to right-click on My Network Places and select Properties. It's always fun dealing with this with an already frustrated user--tell them to right-click on My Network Places and select Properties, then click on Add a new connection, and you'll often hear, "I don't see it." "It's in the upper-left corner of the window." "It's not there." ... Finally, it will dawn on the support person that they didn't right-click on My Network Places, but instead left-clicked on it (skipping over the "select Properties" request). You could steer them through the Control Panel, but with Windows XP, now you have to verify whether they are looking at the classic view or the new XP view of the control panel. This may be an improvement on the control panel (although many would debate that...), but I see no reason why Dial-up Networking can't be included under My Computer anymore.
You stated my exact sentiment regarding Windows design--it's for the end users, not for the support staff. But support is an end user experience as well. The requirement of remembering the minutia of subtle and not-so-subtle dialog changes from Windows version to Windows version is asking for someone with an incredible memory--in real life, most people simply don't have it. The end result? The end user suffers. The support staff suffers as well, and time and money is lost. I certainly want Microsoft to improve their products. All I'm saying is that they could do a better job in this regard. |
| #20 By 5444 (208.180.140.124) at 11/24/2002 9:48:04 PM |
|
GG,
Not to hard for Unix shell to be that more powerful. it is a 20+ year old Netowrk Operating system. That grew up in the days of No graphical Shells. So I would hope in those 20 years that the CLI interface in Unix would be Very robust. It would be interesting to see where DOS was if they took it to a true 32 bit os with a hardware abstraction layer. The UI technologies will always be changing. We have desktops today that are more powerful than the Cray 1 computer. Moving forward with the new technology just released. the R300 and the coming nv30, we have Graphics processors that are as powerful as graphic server farms of only 2 years ago if not more powerful than it. the nv30 for example is a magnitude more powerful than the sgi infinity render farm. The Issue has become a price point issue. Linux people keep Hounding that their OS will work on older Technology. I say great, that it does, but does that also mean they are spending a gread deal of time trying to maintain an code in technology that will be faiding out?? El |
| #21 By 7754 (209.98.24.241) at 11/24/2002 9:59:21 PM |
| Hmmm... desktop computers today more powerful than the Cray 1? By some standards of measure, of course, but that's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. An example? The UK's Colossus, used to break codes in WWII, is twice as fast at its task than a Pentium computer. If you subjected a Colossus to a modern day Pentium benchmark (if that were possible), it would likely fail miserably--just like the Pentium is inefficient at the task for which the Colossus was designed. |
| #22 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/24/2002 10:36:44 PM |
|
Just for the sake of those who didn't come from the UNIX world, CLI in this discussion == "Command Line Interface", CLI != "Comman Language Infrastructure".
One the subject of NT's command line, we need to take into account that most of scripting ability of NT (and by NT I mean v5 and up) is available not by DOS scripts, but from COM enabled scripting languages. With Windows 2000 and more so with Windows .NET Server 2003 there is very little that the GUI can do, that a VBScript, JScript, etc. can't do. For this reason, I wouldn't at all say that the UNIX command line is 100x more powerful that the NT command line, so long as we are talking v5 and greater of the NT line. |
| #23 By 7754 (209.98.24.241) at 11/24/2002 11:10:11 PM |
|
Sheesh, bob670, in what way am I crying? FWIW, I've been there with configuring modems in DOS, and yes, a ton of progress had been made since then. If I didn't made it clear enough before: I DO NOT MIND THE WORK. What I do mind, however, is when I have to go to my CFO and say support costs are up because of an increase in the length of calls on configuring Windows, due to continual changes in the dialogs. Maybe that's hard for you to believe? If we were starting with Windows XP as our first OS, it would be a different story, but we've been through Windows 3.1, 95, 98, and we've had installations of ME and 2000. I've seen the struggles our support team has gone through--and these people do study the OS (thanks for the implication otherwise...). It's not a lack of dedication on their part, nor is it a lack of skill. What I also mind is that productivity is being sapped from end users when XP should be increasing it. Maybe I should take your stance and tell my CFO that "that's why support pays well." Great idea.
There are certainly productivity gains to be had with Windows XP, and I think it's the best OS that Microsoft has produced. I am all for progress, and I understand when changes need to be made. But some of these changes aren't really about progress--the Dial-up Networking issue being one example. Again, all I'm saying is that Microsoft could do better in this area. They aren't perfect, nor is anyone else. |
| #24 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/25/2002 12:50:42 AM |
|
gg, you're right. In UNIX you don't need to know a scripting language to script. I think Microsoft's architecture is more powerful, though it does require knowledge of a scripting language. My reasons for this are thus: with a knowledge of VBScript, one can script most administrative functions of Windows 2000 and greater, automate most functions of all the Office applications via Office macros, write ASP web applications, and do a fair amount of work coding VB6 applications. I can use my knowledge in several situations for many purposes. With UNIX scripting, I can use my knowledge in one place for one thing. In another place (automating processes in productivity applications, for instance) I need different knowledge. To write dynamic web applications, I need yet another set of knoweldge. Etc. etc.
I don't mean to knock UNIX's command line tools, for they are powerful. I just think that the Windows architecture, which admittedly is different, is also very powerful and, in my opinion, is better for the user because you can leverage knowledge to solve several different problem types. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:02:21 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
