Windows Vista rants...

[FuzzDuckie]

Ross and Tushman- thanks for your explanations...they do make sense and I may have mis read/misunderstood. I was veering off into what would a user do if they have an advanced windows OS and a program that was produced somewhere around Win98 time period but then is no longer produced or maintained yet the user cannot find any alternative that he likes and really needs that particular program to work on newWindows. I'm not talking about MS's products but 3rd party products. Granted yes you DO take a risk anyway with ANY 3rd party product on ANY windows but most do try to keep up with the ever changing Windows.Back on topic...I like that little new fix of renaming just the name part. Can't tell you how many tmes I've renamed files in Windows Explorers...it is a real PITA to do it....I for one am curious to see what Vista is like. I just may get to if Dad-campaign for a new computers stretches into whenever Vista comes out lol

[Rons]

epp_bClassic view is still available.

[Dash]

Well back on topic (with my first post in this forum) I'll agree with one thing in the OP.As far as the new Windows Explorer 'Breadcrumbs' feature goes, they got it very wrong.If the picture here is any indication:http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/art/72/breadcrumbs.jpgthen there is no real address bar, which is a big mistake.However the way the breadcrumbs feature works just seems wrong to me. Looking at the picture, if I want to change drives, I'd need to click on the step above (i.e. Computer). This just seems to defy logic to me.If I want to change drives, why wouldn't I be clicking on the part of the address that contains the drive info? Or to go to a different Program Files Folder, I'd be selecting the step down from Program Files (IE in the pic).And I'm not just saying that because the explorer program I use works that way. It just seems much more logical.So as a side note...... if anyone wants an Explorer program that already has the breadcrumb feature (and although it's works a tad differently it's still there years before Microsoft will have it), still has an address bar, as well as having tabs long before Microsoft even include them in their browser, have alook at this. And don't let the 'lite' label put you off. It beats Windows Explorer hands down.http://www.zabkat.com/x2lite.htmThe pro version:http://www.zabkat.com/Addition to my original post:Thought I'd also add this as I just re-read Scot's post referring to the new Windows Explorer:"Little things, like, when you click, pause, click (or press F2) to rename a file, the File extension of the file (if visible), isn't automatically highlighted. So it's not a PITA to rename the file without renaming the extension"xplorer2 already does that too. In both panes...

Edited August 21, 2005 by Dash

[Peachy]

One feature that I would like Microsoft to steal from Apple is application installation. Wouldn't it be lovely if you could just drag an application icon from the CD/DVD and plop it into an Applications folder on your system? The icon is a container that holds all the files and dlls required to run the application. And then to uninstall, just drag the application icon from the Applications folder and plop into the Recycle Bin.

[epp_b]

That would certainly makes things easier and probably cause Windows to be less vulnerable. But would the superior functionality of Windows be compromised?

[Tushman]

One feature that I would like Microsoft to steal from Apple is application installation. Wouldn't it be lovely if you could just drag an application icon from the CD/DVD and plop it into an Applications folder on your system? The icon is a container that holds all the files and dlls required to run the application. And then to uninstall, just drag the application icon from the Applications folder and plop into the Recycle Bin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's too late for that. Although I agree it's much more user friendly that way, it would confuse some Windows users. We all know the proper way to Install/ Uninstall an application. But there are some users who haven't a clue what the difference is between a shortcut and an icon. Introducing a whole new method of installing a program that way would mean breaking old habits and making new ones.For years, they've been told erasing a shortcut, icon, or removing it from the Start menu doesn't uninstall the program. And if you start encouraging them to move things to the trash can... well that's a can or worms you don't wanna open. Microsoft "tried" to make it user friendly by adding the 'Add/Remove' applet in the control panel but it didn't latch on too well for most users. I suspect we won't see much change going on with that functionality until the day MS decides to put more focus on it.

[Dash]

That would certainly makes things easier and probably cause Windows to be less vulnerable.  But would the superior functionality of Windows be compromised?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which superior functionality is that?The registry messes, dll ****, left over program files etc? And no, I don't use a mac. Just curious.

[Tushman]

Which superior functionality is that?The registry messes, dll ****, left over program files etc?  And no, I don't use a mac. Just curious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All of which you quoted hasn't a darn thing to do with Windows. In those cases it's the fault of the software programmer who wrote the application - not MS. A well written program installs well and uninstalls cleanly with as little user intervention as possible.

[Dash]

All of which you quoted hasn't a darn thing to do with Windows.  In those cases it's the fault of the software programmer who wrote the application - not MS.  A well written program installs well and uninstalls cleanly with as little user intervention as possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you could equally argue that a well thought out OS wouldn't let situations like that arise.But that's not the real question.....What superior functionality and I'm gaining for those years of install/uninstall issues I've had to deal with?

[Tushman]

And you could equally argue that a well thought out OS wouldn't let situations like that arise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps. But the way I look it, it's not MS's job to clean up the mess of some poorly written software - the programmer should have done that in the first place.I don't know what computer skills/ experience you have but unless you're a programmer whos written API calls and know how to write code - I don't think you'd be saying that. I'm not completely letting MS off the hook here but it's completely unfair to put the blame squarely on MS. I've tried out some really poorly designed software with no uninstallers and left behind a mess of empty registry keys and the "dll ****" you speak of.

But that's not the real question.....What superior functionality and I'm gaining for those years of install/uninstall issues I've had to deal with?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know what epp was talkin about either - really quite confusing with his "superior functionality" comment. Edited August 21, 2005 by Tushman

[Dash]

I'm not completely letting MS off the hook here but it's completely unfair to put the blame squarely on MS.  I've tried out some really poorly designed software with no uninstallers and left behind a mess of empty registry keys and the "dll ****" you speak of.I don't know what epp was talkin about either - really quite confusing with his "superior functionality" comment. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll confess I'm no programmer. The whole thing was more or less started in jest.I assumed epp was referring to Windows superior functionality over the Mac, as he did respond to a thread discussing the way Mac programs install. I was just having a dig at the superior functionality idea when comparing installation procedures. Or so I thought. :'( But maybe he was talking about Windows own functionality or something and we just crossed wires somewhere. I'm just sorry the whole thing ended up being another off topic distraction.....

[Tushman]

I'm just sorry the whole thing ended up being another off topic distraction..... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No worries Dash - I gave a while ago trying to keep this thread on topic - it's got more split ends than a girl with bad hair.

[Dash]

No worries Dash - I gave a while ago trying to keep this thread on topic - it's got more split ends than a girl with bad hair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, it's sooo easy to get dragged into these things.If I was going to wander off topic though, I'd have preferred it to be to discuss the explorer program I gave a plug to in my post #66. I was reading about the new Explorer in Scot's Newsletter and thinking "been there, done that".(I don't have anything to do with the program. I just like spreading the word about it. :'() However....... I just went back and re-read epp's original post. And discovered he said:"At the very least, included bloatware should be easily removable without causing problems with left-behind-files, the registry, etc. (oh wait, that's called a Mac). In fact, I think most software should be this way.........."So now I really have no idea who thinks what.........

[epp_b]

Yeah, I hate Macs. But I hate Windows too :rolleyes:Macs are just form-over-function. I can't stand the lack of keyboard shortcuts, the oven-mit mouse...refer to my prior post ;)Windows is (well, used to be) function-over-form, which is good. Now that I think of it, though, making applications more complex is perhaps a good idea for excellent manual configurability. What I dislike about Windows is the stability issues, bloat, and vulnerabilities. But, since I'm a Windows user, I guess the Pros outweigh the Cons.

[Scot]

If the picture here is any indication:http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/art/72/breadcrumbs.jpgthen there is no real address bar, which is a big mistake.

Dash, the old address bar is still there; you can get to it from a context menu. I hope they add something even easier, like pressing Escape or something. I didn't understand your comments about what's wrong with breadcrumbs. Perhaps you need to try it for yourself; or perhaps we just have different ways of working. Bottom line: When I'm using the mouse, I want to use the mouse. I don't like switching back and forth between the keyboard and the mouse. This tool definitely reduces input-device waffle. It creates actual UI where none previously existed. It's also not finished UI. It's definitely headed in the right direction.-- ScotP.S. LilBambi, I did leave out OS/2, but that's mostly because OS/2 2.0 (the first one that mattered in my book) didn't hit until *after* Windows 3.0, and it didn't get to the point where most people would want to use it until Warp, around 1993-94. The big problem with OS/2 was not the OS, but the lack of support provided by its maker. If IBM had actually had the courage of its convictions and stood behind it's desktop OS, it had at least a chance. But the device driver support was worse than for Linux, and the process of adding device drivers was arcane. And there were some definite usability gaffes in other aspects of the OS. Windows 3.x was a child's toy compared to OS/2 2.0 and esp. 3.0. But Windows 95 was a better (if not more robust) OS than OS/2. IBM had a three-year window to make it succeed. Unfortunately, they used Warp as image advertising. They weren't really serious about promoting it, and when they did, it came way too late. Like so many good things, IBM frittered OS/2 away.

[Peachy]

Ah yes, OS/2 Warp. Those were the days. I installed it in the summer of '95 -- can it be 10 years already? -- just before Windows 95 came out. I had no problems installing it on my 486DX-2 66 MHz box. It found all the devices: ATI Mach32, Creative Labs SoundBlaster 16, Adaptec AHA-2742 VLB SCSI adapter. But it wasn't all foolproof. There was no PPP support for modem access out-of-the box so I first had to log into CompuServe, head over to the IBM support forum and track it down. Good thing I didn't have cable Internet access or I would have been annoyed that there was no Ethernet support in plain-vanilla Warp 3.0. And, oh, the GUI definitely had usuability issues. Trying to change display resolution and colour depth took about 8 clicks! What's up with that? I never bothered with Warp 4 after Windows 95 came out.

[Tushman]

Unfortunately, they used Warp as image advertising. They weren't really serious about promoting it, and when they did, it came way too late. Like so many good things, IBM frittered OS/2 away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can blame the top brass at IBM's management for that one. Shirley they didn't see the desktop OS as a profitable market like MS did. Just like they missed the boat on the mouse in the early days of development? Wasn't it Xerox and IBM who first partnered together in that venture? PARC comes to mind. Edited August 22, 2005 by Tushman

[epp_b]

Which superior functionality is that?The registry messes, dll ****, left over program files etc?  And no, I don't use a mac. Just curious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you ever tried typing on a Mac without using a mouse? I dare you. The lack of built-in and logical keyboard shortcuts will drive you insane. In fact, just try getting around with only a keyboard. Ouch. The Window management just isn't there. The dock is huge and ugly. The menu bar is on top of the screen and not within the program, so switching programs can cause confusion, etc, etc, etc.

All of which you quoted hasn't a darn thing to do with Windows. In those cases it's the fault of the software programmer who wrote the application - not MS. A well written program installs well and uninstalls cleanly with as little user intervention as possible.

A valid point that actually causes me to flip-flop on this issue. I like the manual configurability of Windows. Many advanced functions and options are built into the registry or INI files to keep lusers from changing crucial and foundational settings that they really shouldn't unless they know what they're doing (and, if you're hand-editing INI files or the registry, you obviously know what you're doing).It's because too many programs use the registry to store user settings that this creates a mess. Programs should use INI files or at least some kind of ASCII file within the program's directory to store settings and use the registry ONLY when it is an absolute MUST (eg.: interfacing with a core Windows component).I thought it was a neat idea to install programs as stand-alone files, but maybe not. Call me Mr. Pancake

[Guest LilBambi]

P.S. LilBambi, I did leave out OS/2, but that's mostly because OS/2 2.0 (the first one that mattered in my book) didn't hit until *after* Windows 3.0, and it didn't get to the point where most people would want to use it until Warp, around 1993-94. The big problem with OS/2 was not the OS, but the lack of support provided by its maker. If IBM had actually had the courage of its convictions and stood behind it's desktop OS, it had at least a chance. But the device driver support was worse than for Linux, and the process of adding device drivers was arcane. And there were some definite usability gaffes in other aspects of the OS. Windows 3.x was a child's toy compared to OS/2 2.0 and esp. 3.0. But Windows 95 was a better (if not more robust) OS than OS/2. IBM had a three-year window to make it succeed. Unfortunately, they used Warp as image advertising. They weren't really serious about promoting it, and when they did, it came way too late. Like so many good things, IBM frittered OS/2 away.

I would have to totally agree with you regarding OS/2 on all accounts. Sad but true.

[havnblast]

Might be interested in the articleWindows Got Ya Down? Try a Remix http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,128...tw=wn_tophead_1

[Dash]

If the picture here is any indication:http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/art/72/breadcrumbs.jpgthen there is no real address bar, which is a big mistake.

Dash, the old address bar is still there; you can get to it from a context menu. I hope they add something even easier, like pressing Escape or something. I didn't understand your comments about what's wrong with breadcrumbs. Perhaps you need to try it for yourself; or perhaps we just have different ways of working. Bottom line: When I'm using the mouse, I want to use the mouse. I don't like switching back and forth between the keyboard and the mouse. This tool definitely reduces input-device waffle. It creates actual UI where none previously existed. It's also not finished UI. It's definitely headed in the right direction.-- Scot

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Scot,it's not breadcrumbs that I don't like. I think it's an awesome idea. It's just the way it's implimented that seemed a bit odd to me at first.You said about breadcrumbs in your newsletter:"You thought what you were looking for was on Drive C: and now you realize it's on Drive D:? No problem — just click the step right before "Local Disk (C:)," usually "Computer," and choose Local Disk (D:) from the drop-down menu."It was the "step right before" part that seemed unintuitive to me. If I wanted to change drives I'd probably expect to click on the "Local Disk C" area of the path and change drives from there.But I'll be brave and admit I've had a serious rethink and now believe, for ultimate ease of navigation, it's been done the right way.Is there a way I can take back everything in my previous post?

[epp_b]