| 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 |
 |
How to fix what's wrong with Windows | |
|
||
| Time: 11:04 EST/16:04 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
There's a major problem with Microsoft Windows that nobody seems to be doing anything about: It's not getting easier to use. And it should be. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:58:33 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/14/2003 11:31:57 AM |
|
"But what I'd really like to see is Microsoft designing Longhorn to make home users and workers happier and more productive."
Wow... that's brilliant!! I bet they'd never have thought to do that if you hadn't mentioned it. |
| #2 By 2960 (68.100.36.242) at 11/14/2003 12:48:03 PM |
|
"I heard a guy say the other day that his company still uses Windows 95! That means they probably have 2mb video cards (if that) and 1 gb hard drives. Talk about lack of productivity. "
Well, this is certainly not necessarily true. If it works for them, why is it a loss in productivity just because it's not the latest? Look at Word. 95% of the people use 5% of the features the last I heard. So an older version might not have half-the features, but the user doesn't use them anyway. Where's the lost productivity there ? My Grandfather once went shopping for a new Wheat thrasher. Never bought it. Long story short, he found an old, decrepit one sitting in a junk pile on one of the Farms, cleaned it up, re-engineered a few things to work with modern-day tractors, and ended up with an 1800's wheat thrasher that turned out cleaner wheat than anything he could buy new, and spent almost nothing on it. Old is not always bad :) TL |
| #3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/14/2003 1:12:12 PM |
|
I don't buy the argument that 95% of the people use 5% of the features in Word... if that were the case, they might as well use WordPad, but in everyplace I've worked, they've taken advantage of lots of features that you can't find in Write.exe (compare and merge and other collaboration features, Tables, Columns, footnotes, AutoCorrect and AutoText, automatic page numbering, styles, etc. etc. etc.). These are not far-flung features, but useful functionality. And even if they did use only 5%, it's the particular 5% that they use that makes it beneficial--one person uses this 5%, another uses that 5%. Even though it's only 5%, if they can't find it in another program, it doesn't matter.
I do agree that old is not always bad, though... our desktops here are getting pretty old, actually. The type of work most of our users do doesn't require more than a 2 MB video card, nor does it require a Pentium IV. Some of our old equipment (not just computers) works pretty darn well, actually. :) |
| #4 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/14/2003 1:14:58 PM |
| Hmmm, run a set of apps on a PI or a P4? There'd be an instant productivity gain due the the perf of the hw. |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/14/2003 2:39:47 PM |
| Not necessarily, BobSmith--depends on what you're running. A PI vs. a P4, yes, machine vintage-wise there are a lot of architectural differences, but say a PII vs. a P4? If all you do is Word and Excel, a P4 may open the app 3 seconds faster for you, but once you're in it, it's roughly the same. Certainly not worth dropping $600-700 or so per user, not to mention the associated rollout/support costs. |
| #6 By 415 (199.8.64.33) at 11/14/2003 3:43:15 PM |
|
I sure don't believe that everything old should be replaced with someting new, but I also don't think we can effectively compare software (and computers in general) to tools or simple machinery.
If we were to leave some really useful software and a pair of scissors sealed in a time capsule for 100 hundred years, which do you think would be useful when the time capsule is opened? The point is that software and hardware becomes obsolete and becomes more expensive to use and maintain as time goes on. Computer technology does not exist in a vacuum. This post was edited by IronCladLou on Friday, November 14, 2003 at 16:04. |
| #7 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/14/2003 4:12:44 PM |
|
bl, I was referring to the productivity loss comment. There is more than just opening an app. There is booting/rebooting. There is waiting for explorer. There is playing your CDs. etc.
Just a hunch, but I think a P4 2.4 GHz will run Win95 with better perf than a P2 450. The discussion didn't involve hw costs or rollout, though they are certainly a factor. A simple comp between same software p1/p2 vs. p4 should yield obvious results...the p4 gives better perf, hence greater productivity. The tractor analogy has no place here. |
| #8 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/14/2003 5:10:43 PM |
|
p4's would run it finer. ;-)
How many p2's shipped with 256 MB RAM? Oh yeah, very few. Besides, we were talking about keeping existing sw. |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/14/2003 6:07:24 PM |
|
Same thing here, Parker--many PII 350s, XP Pro and Office XP, 256 MB RAM, and they're fine. As for rebooting, well, we don't really need to do that. :)
A benchmark will show a P4 blows away a PII in business apps, but how many people can work as if they were an automated test? Having a P4 doesn't make you think or type any faster... our users aren't out-thinking or out-typing their PIIs. Playing CDs? They do it fine. Opening Explorer? Again, shaving 1-2 seconds (at worst, actually) off the app opening time is not going to greatly influence their productivity. I would agree that the tractor analogy breaks down at some point when compared with computer hardware, but nonetheless, sometimes the older hardware does the job just fine, depending on the job. Usually the bottleneck in our case is not on the technology end of things.... ;) |
| #10 By 18227 (68.105.184.157) at 11/14/2003 6:44:11 PM |
| Thresher, not "thrasher." |
| #11 By 16451 (63.227.226.13) at 11/14/2003 7:08:00 PM |
| depends on how sharp the blades are, I guess |
| #12 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/14/2003 9:41:15 PM |
|
" As for rebooting, well, we don't really need to do that. :) "
As if. I'd guess you haven't applied a patch for either Windows or Office if you haven't rebooted. I suppose you've never had any other reason to reboot either? Yeah, right.... I don't often reboot my XP machines, but not often isn't never as you imply. And besides, and once again, the argument dealt with Windows 95, not Windows XP. Let me guess...you never rebooted 95? Oh, and base Pentiums and P2s (you know, the machine we are talking about) didn't ship with 256 MB RAM. It's interesting that it takes a few seconds less to open a window, save a file, open a file, etc...I wonder what the cumulative time savings is in a month, six months, a year.... |
| #13 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/15/2003 3:17:04 AM |
|
"I'd guess you haven't applied a patch for either Windows or Office if you haven't rebooted."
They are rebooted when patched for Windows (I can't think of any Office updates that have required a reboot lately), but this takes place in the middle of the morning via SMS when users are logged off. It doesn't affect user productivity. I'm not sure why you're limiting this to Windows 95 (incidentally, we did have 95 boxes that would run very well for weeks at a time... having a clean install without having it go through various installations of Napster, Gator, screen savers, etc. does wonders...). That was never my premise. We're upgrading software frequently because we're on maintenance plans for quite a bit of it; we found that even if we planned not to upgrade, we'd end up having to do it for one reason or another anyhow (usually client-driven). However, this hasn't applied to hardware, other than to bump up the RAM. Some PIIs did ship with 256, but you're right, most were upgraded (from 128). I don't consider it a major hardware upgrade, though, considering the price of RAM and that the machines are built to accept it. As for the cumulative savings, I just don't think it adds up. Most users I know don't just sit and wait for their computer when they're doing something. If it takes some time, they'll take on another task simultaneously. What's more, just because Word starts up faster doesn't mean they'll begin typing any sooner; same as for save and open file dialogs. It would be very hard to get an accurate measure of cumulative time saved, but I'd be curious to know the results myself. |
| #14 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/15/2003 5:20:34 AM |
| The discussion at hand began in #3 and #4. That's when we began talking about Windows 95. Back when it was released P1s and P2s were around, which is why I brought them up. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:58:34 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
