Coffeehouse Thread

125 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Once again MS does all it can to make WP fail

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , cbae wrote

    @Ray7: I see you've taken in Apple's philosophy of devices being simply a launcher of a shiteload of unrelated "apps" hook, line, and sinker.

    Dunno. I just want to get stuff done, I guess. Could be that I've just decided I've fiddled with the OS enough and it's time to actually do some work. The interesting thing though is that it wasn't really OSX that got me thinking differently, it was Ubuntu Linux. The setup I have a to work is really bare bones. It starts up, it shuts down, it doesn't gripe.  Solid, dependable, and pretty much invisible. I probably wouldn't want to do any serious multimedia stuff with it, but for web stuff and Java it's just the job. A lot of the contractors switched to it at home after a few months using it at work. I think I'm the last hanger-on ... Smiley

    For me, I WANT the OS to be the "product" because I'd rather have it do everything rather than do nothing. If I didn't have to install 50 separate programs every time I buy a new computer, I'd welcome the concept wholeheartedly.

    Yes, that's the difference you see. To me, an OS is just something that handles the housekeeping. I don't feel the need to interact with it every two minutes and I don't need it reminding me it's there every thirty seconds.

    The device itself should be the most unobtrusive part of computing.

    And the operating system is part of the device, which is why I have no idea what operating system my television set runs.

    When I'm using the computer I spend about 99.9% looking at the software on the screen.

    Wouldn't you rather spend 99.9% of the time doing actual work?

    I don't sit there staring at the shiny aluminum case of the machine while self-gratifying myself. 

    Oh dear, is that the best you can do?

    If you have a point then you should just make it. Showing your frustration by throwing insults really doesn't do you any credit at all.

     

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , cbae wrote

    For me, I WANT the OS to be the "product" because I'd rather have it do everything rather than do nothing. If I didn't have to install 50 separate programs every time I buy a new computer, I'd welcome the concept wholeheartedly.

    If you do that, the price of windows will be determined by the price of developing windows plus the price of developing 50 applications, i.e. more expensive.

    Instead, you can pay the cheaper price for Windows and then pay different companies for the pieces of software you actually want, e.g. You don't want to pay for a Windows version of Photoshop in the licence and then have to buy Photoshop anyway - not only is that more expensive for you in the long run (except in the unlikely event that you need all 50), but also it'll waste space on your drive for apps that you don't want and be less competitive (and possibly anti-competitive) compared with the current model of you buy the software that you actually want, rather than nanny-Microsoft making you pay for the software that Microsoft thinks you will want.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    Dunno. I just want to get stuff done, I guess. Could be that I've just decided I've fiddled with the OS enough and it's time to actually do some work. The interesting thing though is that it wasn't really OSX that got me thinking differently, it was Ubuntu Linux. The setup I have a to work is really bare bones. It starts up, it shuts down, it doesn't gripe.  Solid, dependable, and pretty much invisible. I probably wouldn't want to do any serious multimedia stuff with it, but for web stuff and Java it's just the job. A lot of the contractors switched to it at home after a few months using it at work. I think I'm the last hanger-on ... Smiley

    Solid, dependable. How is this experience any different from Windows 7?

    *snip*

    Yes, that's the difference you see. To me, an OS is just something that handles the housekeeping. I don't feel the need to interact with it every two minutes and I don't need it reminding me it's there every thirty seconds.

    Uh, what difference? I know of no version of Windows that required that you interact with it every 2 minutes or reminds you that it's there every 30 seconds. Are you sure it was Windows that you were using? If it was, you'd have far more credibility if you toned down the hyperbole.

    Anyway, I'd rather NOT have an OS that does so little, it's implicitly reminding you constantly that you need to install another application to do your task. Why should I have to install or launch a separate application to manage my music files? Why can't the OS just have that feature built into the UI shell? 

    And the operating system is part of the device, which is why I have no idea what operating system my television set runs.

    Congratulations. You just described an operating system that's more fully integrated with the domain-specific task. That's exactly what I've been talking about. There's no concept of a separate application to bring up the guide. It's built into the OS.

    Wouldn't you rather spend 99.9% of the time doing actual work?

    I'd rather spend 0% of my time actually doing work, but be that as it may, I spend a considerable amount of time doing work on my computer. Of the non-work time, I would have to say that virtually none of that time is spent thinking that I'm using Windows or being reminded that I'm using Windows.

    Oh dear, is that the best you can do?

    If you have a point then you should just make it. Showing your frustration by throwing insults really doesn't do you any credit at all.

    Frustration at what? LOL I'm just pointing out that I enjoy using software and that shiny aluminum cases don't compel me to self-abuse. If that hits too close to home for you, that's your problem, not mine.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , evildictaitor wrote

    *snip*

    If you do that, the price of windows will be determined by the price of developing windows plus the price of developing 50 applications, i.e. more expensive.

    Instead, you can pay the cheaper price for Windows and then pay different companies for the pieces of software you actually want, e.g. You don't want to pay for a Windows version of Photoshop in the licence and then have to buy Photoshop anyway - not only is that more expensive for you in the long run (except in the unlikely event that you need all 50), but also it'll waste space on your drive for apps that you don't want and be less competitive (and possibly anti-competitive) compared with the current model of you buy the software that you actually want, rather than nanny-Microsoft making you pay for the software that Microsoft thinks you will want.

    I understand that, but the reason that it's not feasible is merely a product of how the software industry is structured. In an ideal world, you'd be able to buy a computer with the EXACT software specifications that you want just as you can with hardware.

    Instead of there being no sign of an OS and only applications as Ray mentioned in his computing utopia, I'd rather there be no distinction between applications and OS and no distinction between different applications. Everything would just appear to be a feature of the OS just like his television example.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    Solid, dependable. How is this experience any different from Windows 7?

    Yes, I think I see your problem. You seem to think that people are only capable of appreciating one operating system. I didn't actually say Windows wasn't solid and dependable (I haven't had a single Windows crash in years). What I am saying is that Linux is also solid and dependable in a development environment and since it's a damn sight cheaper than Windows that's why this outfit has chosen to use it. If they needed Word (they don't) or Photoshop (they don't need that either) then it would be different story.

    *snip*

    Uh, what difference? I know of no version of Windows that required that you interact with it every 2 minutes or reminds you that it's there every 30 seconds. Are you sure it was Windows that you were using? If it was, you'd have far more credibility if you toned down the hyperbole.

    Yup, it was. Update notifications, virus notifications, problems waking up from sleep, problems going to sleep. This thing won't run with this version of .NET, this other thing from the same damn company won't run with that version of .NET. Can't we have just ONE set of notifications that gets done all at once at the start of the day? Yes, I should probably clean out and just reinstall it, but why can't it just sort itself out.

    Interesting that you accuse others of hyperbole after saying folk are sitting around admiring their shiny aluminium laptops.

    Anyway, I'd rather NOT have an OS that does so little, it's implicitly reminding you constantly that you need to install another application to do your task. Why should I have to install or launch a separate application to manage my music files? Why can't the OS just have that feature built into the UI shell? 

    Yup, why can't the OS word process files, do spreadsheets, edit video, retouch photographs, run power stations…

    *snip*

    Congratulations. You just described an operating system that's more fully integrated with the domain-specific task. That's exactly what I've been talking about. There's no concept of a separate application to bring up the guide. It's built into the OS.

    Not sure about that. All I want is not to have to deal with the operating system, ever. In the same way that I don't have to deal with the internals of a television set. I'm not sure how having every television program I ever have to watch built into the television set would achieve that.

    I'd rather spend 0% of my time actually doing work,

    Really? That's unfortunate. I rather enjoy my job.

    *snip*

    Frustration at what?

    Well that's what surprises me when you go off one. I just think, "Jeez, it's only software."

    LOL I'm just pointing out that I enjoy using software and that shiny aluminum cases don't compel me to self-abuse. If that hits too close to home for you, that's your problem, not mine.

    Feel free to work it out of your system if it helps, but this is the internet, which means you will always run into people who disagree with you. It would probably earn you more respect if you admitted that your argument had fallen through.

    I mean, building all the apps into the OS?

    Blimey.

    The fact is that Microsoft, Apple and whoever else are striving to make the operating system as simple and unobtrusive as they can. That's just common sense. Perhaps that's what you're afraid of?

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    I understand that, but the reason that it's not feasible is merely a product of how the software industry is structured. In an ideal world, you'd be able to buy a computer with the EXACT software specifications that you want just as you can with hardware.

    Instead of there being no sign of an OS and only applications as Ray mentioned in his computing utopia, I'd rather there be no distinction between applications and OS and no distinction between different applications. Everything would just appear to be a feature of the OS just like his television example.

    So, basically, you want the OS to be invisible?

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , evildictaitor wrote

    *snip*

    If you do that, the price of windows will be determined by the price of developing windows plus the price of developing 50 applications, i.e. more expensive.

    Exactly. And which 50 applications would you choose?

     

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    Yes, I think I see your problem. You seem to think that people are only capable of appreciating one operating system.

    I don't know where you're getting this idea from. I'm just disputing your claim that Windows requires you to "interact with it every two minutes and I don't need it reminding me it's there every thirty seconds". How is Windows different from other operating systems in this regard?

    I didn't actually say Windows wasn't solid and dependable (I haven't had a single Windows crash in years). What I am saying is that Linux is also solid and dependable in a development environment and since it's a damn sight cheaper than Windows that's why this outfit has chosen to use it. If they needed Word (they don't) or Photoshop (they don't need that either) then it would be different story.

    It sure sounded like you were implying that Windows wasn't "solid and dependable" and therefore required that you "interact with it every two minutes" and be reminded that "it's there every thirty seconds".

    *snip*

    Yup, it was. Update notifications, virus notifications, problems waking up from sleep, problems going to sleep. This thing won't run with this version of .NET, this other thing from the same damn company won't run with that version of .NET. Can't we have just ONE set of notifications that gets done all at once at the start of the day? Yes, I should probably clean out and just reinstall it, but why can't it just sort itself out.

    You sound like a "Get a Mac" commercial. Update notifications? Once per month. Virus notification? Never. Problems waking up from sleep? Never. Problems going to sleep? Never.

    I have 6 Windows 7 installation (2  of them virtual) and one Vista installation. I must be lucky to have avoided all of these problems on so many different installations. Or you must be really unlucky.

    Interesting that you accuse others of hyperbole after saying folk are sitting around admiring their shiny aluminium laptops.

    Never accused anybody of anything. I merely indicated what I do not do. If you personally fawn over shiny aluminum, far be it from me to discourage you. Go right ahead.

    *snip*

    Yup, why can't the OS word process files, do spreadsheets, edit video, retouch photographs, run power stations…

    Pretty silly idea, huh? It's just as silly as hoping programs could run without your having to interact with the OS. How would programs even launch? Would the computer just read your mind directly? Would the human brain BE the OS? At any rate, if both scenarios were possible, I'd choose not having to go in an out of applications to do different things and have to install a bunch of stupid "apps" that perform a single function each.

    *snip*

    Not sure about that. All I want is not to have to deal with the operating system, ever. In the same way that I don't have to deal with the internals of a television set. I'm not sure how having every television program I ever have to watch built into the television set would achieve that.

    *snip*

    Really? That's unfortunate. I rather enjoy my job.

    Really? Wouldn't you rather not have to work at all? I mean, I enjoy my work and all, but, *, I'd rather be playing golf right now.

    *snip*

    Well that's what surprises me when you go off one. I just think, "Jeez, it's only software."

    *snip*

    Feel free to work it out of your system if it helps, but this is the internet, which means you will always run into people who disagree with you. It would probably earn you more respect if you admitted that your argument had fallen through.

    And that goes for you too. Your argument is far from standing upright at this point.

    I mean, building all the apps into the OS?

    Blimey.

    You don't seem to understand the concept of "ideal" vs. "practical". It's not practical to have the OS do everything and neither is it practical to have the OS seemingly disappear. But if I had my druthers, I'd rather have OS do as much as possible than do nothing. This is why I rather enjoy the task-oriented rather than app-focused nature of Windows Phone over both iOS and Android.

     

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    I don't know where you're getting this...

    And I think you've had quite enough excitement for one night ... Smiley

     

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    So, basically, you want the OS to be invisible?

    No. I want the separation between applications to be invisible. If a single application can do it, fine. If the OS can do it, fine. But we all know that an OS is essential no matter now "invisible" you want it do be, so might as well have it be the OS.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    And I think you've had quite enough excitement for one night ... Smiley

    Actually, I haven't had enough excitement. There's no shiny aluminum to be found anywhere here. Where did that can of Sprite go?

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    Actually, I haven't had enough excitement.

    Er...I'm afraid I can't help you with that.

     

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    Er...I'm afraid I can't help you with that.

    No? I bet you have lots of shiny aluminum around.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    No. I want the separation between applications to be invisible. If a single application can do it, fine. If the OS can do it, fine. But we all know that an OS is essential no matter now "invisible" you want it do be, so might as well have it be the OS.

    Interesting to see someone saying this. If you turn to"win ce need to reposition" the reactions are  uniformslly against feature rich tv. Obviously one can argue they are different case and i will leave it at that.

    It is true what should come with the merchandise  is completely subjective. In the end, it is all about, whether it meets the customer demand with reasonable price ot not.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    cbae

    , magicalclick wrote

    *snip*

    Interesting to see someone saying this. If you turn to"win ce need to reposition" the reactions are  uniformslly against feature rich tv. Obviously one can argue they are different case and i will leave it at that.

    It is true what should come with the merchandise  is completely subjective. In the end, it is all about, whether it meets the customer demand with reasonable price ot not.

    In that thread, I argued against putting it into the display housing. I feel that functionality belongs in a set-top box, but I think set-top boxes should do more--serve as game console, HTPC, etc. That's what I wanted the Xbox 720 to be in the thread that I started several months ago.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    No? I bet you have lots of shiny aluminum around.

    Are you asking to buy my Macbook off me?

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    Are you asking to buy my Macbook off me?

    No, I just want to fawn over it for a few minutes.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , magicalclick wrote

    *snip*

    It is true what should come with the merchandise  is completely subjective. In the end, it is all about, whether it meets the customer demand with reasonable price ot not.

    True enough. And I guess you will know soon enough if your price isn't reasonable because your customers will tell you, in one way or another.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.