64BLOG
Occassional, direct and not politically correct.
Tuesday 30 December 2008, 2:28 PM
To Err, Is Human
The number of people who slam Microsoft for pretty much everything they do seems to be increasing daily. Vista, Office 2007 and lets not forget the out of band patches that have recently occurred are all reasons to slap Microsoft, for anyone who will listen to them.
Lets try and level the playing field a little here. Microsoft's operating systems go back over 20 years, if we include DOS. Remembering that Windows wasn't originally an operating system, it was an 'environment'.
So, you have upgraded to Vista, and one of your key applications that you use everyday, doesn't work anymore, or needs an update from your vendor to make it work with Windows Vista. This is where you find out your vendor hasn't made the 2.17 version you are using into a 2.18 or a 2.2 that is good for Vista. No. If they have done anything at all, they have release version 3.0 or maybe 2.5 which isn't in your support plan so you have to pay for the upgrade. As it's a key application you either make the upgrade or you fumble around for an older XP based machine and use that only for 'that' application.
Microsoft tried really hard to retain compatibility with previous OS features and at the same time introduce some enhanced security features to keep us all safe while we are using our computers.
This is what we want. We want everything to work perfectly, all the time without any screw ups anywhere by anyone. Well sorry, this is planet earth, populated by humans and probably the most true statement ever made is
To Err, Is human.
When those screw ups do occur, the first reaction is that people blame Microsoft, after all it must be their fault.
Microsoft don't always get it right, but they do stuff a lot better now than they did 10 years ago, and hopefully the same will be true in the next 10.
So, I am standing here Defending Microsoft, prepared to take your custard pies in the puss. The only thing that leaves me with a little concern, is the recent announcement of pay-per-use computers. I suppose that it was guaranteed to come, I just wish it hadn't been Microsofts idea because I haven't a clue how to defend them against it.
PreviousComments on this post
An impartial observer might also suggest that we all to often become dependent on technology (or engineering of any kind) that works pretty well and that we become reliant on.
Would you curse and kick your car if it had never worked well and had always been an unstable heap? Or would you only damn it if let you down one day?
Human beings are creatures of habit and we typically get to like what we like and we stick with it.
Some nice level-headed comments there.
NB: and I don't even use Microsoft products at all. Well, Office for Mac 2008 which I am just about to install later today.
Biz64: I think with the issue of having to keep an old XP rig running to keep that old app in check, then maybe it's time to get the hang of running virtual machines. Then you could have a nice new vista 64 box running windows 98/2000/XP/linux and call up the OS you need with the apps you want at will.
Adrian: A local estate agent in Glastonbury high st runs his entire business from multiple macs and nothing is ever an issue or a problem and nothing ever goes wrong for him. This means he can almost forget his computers are there as they function as very slick tools and do what is asked of them.
The problem I've long had with Microsoft is they work very hard and spend billions to frustrate interoperability and interchangeability -- among programs, platforms, and even open standards like HTML, XML, ODF.
For example, I may have information or content inside a document that is far more valuable then MS Office, OpenOffice, or any program that might open it. However, if it was created with a Microsoft product, it is almost always going to be in a proprietary format that will not interoperate with similar software on another platform, say Linux or Mac, nor can I interchange that info with an outside institution, such as my bank, unless my bank also runs... guess what! Microsoft software!
So software interchangeability goes beyond formats, protocols, APIs, user interface, and operating system support, and also includes in-application programmability. Note that these issues apply not just to standalone desktop applications but also to software delivered through a web browser.
Again, Microsoft will let you play in the cloud as long as you do it their [Windows Live] backyard, and when you do, you're going to have to open your wallet. I'm not willing to pay a corporation to do MY work on MY computer. Not anymore.
Ah Zaine..from what you say above; It gives me a sense of a backlash in the making. Why would anyone want to pay the giant corp for having access to what they already own! Lunacy in the extreme. Are they going to try and force people in this direction by restricting the avialability of boxed products?
This may be why MS have subsidised their Xbox to the tune of billions. They could never hope to break a profit on that one product. But...what they have done, is to use financial muscle as a great big lever to insert their technology into peoples living rooms. Now they can try and sell services to living room/entertainment type folk. If business does start to turn its back on MS then watch out for your home space. I've no doubt MS would chuck many free sweeties into peoples homes with the view to getting us all hooked.
As for windows live, I must say I do take full advantage of all the free stuff going on there.
The issue with Microsoft is that they have thousands of stockholders to pacify with stock value (price) and/or dividend increases. They generate "product churn" by adding supposed new products and product features to generate new sales. They do it by burdening their users with new claptrap.
Considering that the point of using software on a computer is to get work done as efficiently as possible, screwing with the "user experience" should be the "third rail" of software design. You do NOT disenfranchise the current user-base of your main line product without endangering your profit. Why assume that users will blindly accept whatever idiocy you throw at them without backlash? "Office Ribbons" a case in point.
If you as a vendor have a product requiring the user to learn to use the product through a set of actions to get his job done, once that process has been established, don't screw with it. At the VERY LEAST enable a means to operate a User Shell that operates the new software in the same manner as the old user interface.
I point to the very beginning, when Microsoft banished WordPerfect as the dominate word processor. You could put Word into a mode that allowed the dot commands learned in WordPerfect to operate in Word. Thousands of secretaries (that was before "administrative assistants"!) had learned the arcane dot commands and did not want to learn yet another system just to do their job. That is the lesson Microsoft seems to have forgotten. You don't screw with the user.
My personal experience with MS Office 2007 is that it is slow, ungainly, a pain in the posterior to use compared to OpenOffice 3 which operates more like Office 2000. MS Office 2000 was at least a step up from Office 97 (a bug riddled mess).
At this point I think Microsoft needs to listen to its critics more since it seems they've forgotten the users who have to use their software every day to do tasks that really haven't changed all that much in the last 20 or even 30 years. Just because the IT guy has drunk the Microsoft kool-aid doesn't mean the rest of the users at the company should have to as well.
Roger,
The reason I mentioned keeping an old XP rig around, is that most of my customers really don't want to tangle with Virtual Machines. Considering that a VM install requires an OS licence anyhow there are advantages both ways.
XWJ,
I was never a WordPerfect guy, I always found the command structure really baffling, like Alt-Shift-4 would embolded a word, but that if it was selected and it was a Sunday morning. Personally I preferred Wordstar, and its dot commands, a bit eccentric in places but it worked well, at least up until Wordstar 2000.
To take your case in point regarding MS Office 2007, yes it is a little slower in action, however my understanding of the reason of the user interface change was that Microsoft received many many requests for features that already existed, particularly in Word, but were so difficult to find, customers assumed the feature wasn't there. The ribbon was supposed to make the discoverability of features easier. To make this point a little more palatable I do think that an option to 'switch' to the office 2003 interface was an opportunity missed.
So, I may have drunk a little too much of the Microsoft kool-aid, but over the years, and especially since I started my own consultancy, Microsoft have been good to me. I got on the Empower Program that gave me MSDN free for 2 years, and the Partner Program is exceptional value for what it costs. It is also one of the easier companies to find solutions for, someone somewhere pretty much has done what you are trying to do and with development that is probably one of the major benefits of using Microsoft technologies.
Getting MSDN free for 2 years is a pretty good inducement to get you to be happy about Microsoft. That's about $5000 to $7500 depending on the subscription level. But your users don't get that subscription and because of the product churn, they end up having to have you around to help them out.
Its an 'easy company to find solutions for' simply because they are the only game in town. They would have a world-wide user revolt if information wasn't available.
WordPerfect and Wordstar both were riddled with idiotic command strings to do simple to arcane things. The issue for users back then was that they had spent months learning a piece of software and did NOT want to start all over again with new software.
The point I was making is that assuming the USER is already using Microsoft product, why screw with what he or she is doing to get work done? Allow the new product to operate in a "user experience" shell that continues to operate the way the user was most likely trained in.
Microsoft should think it through as a USER this way:
1) If the task does not change, why change the software? Allow a task to be done in the same fashion as previously,
2) If the software has to be changed then plant a "user experience" shell in the product that allows the user to continue to operate as if nothing has changed. Because for him or her it hasn't! Its just that the damn Microsoft software has changed.
3) If the software has changed enough so that a shell will not work then offer a help system to allow the user to tell the software what previous version he or she was familiar with. Then give him or her special help from the new program specific to training the user to do the same tasks in the new software with the new procedure.
(And before you come back and tell me MSO 2007 has a help system, try using it if you DON'T KNOW MS Jargon! The typical Admin Assistant has not drunk the kool aid and can't talk MS much less work the new software.)
Your comment about a VM hit almost perfectly on target. I have been testing VMs, mostly Linux distributions in a VMWare Workstation 6.5 running on XP Pro on a Dual Core 2.2 GHz Pentium system with 3GB RAM. It runs great. The Linux VMs run quite well. We're looking to get rid of Windows entirely.
Running XP Pro in a VM on a XP Pro host runs OK not stellar but reasonable.
The same VMWare Workstation 6.5 running on a FASTER machine (2.8 GHz) Core2 Duo with more memory (4GB RAM) BUT running on Vista runs so freaking slow its nearly unusable for testing Linux VMs.
I had not thought to test running Microsoft Office 2000 in an XP Pro VM on Vista. Why should I have to? I should be able to run Microsoft Office 2000 on Vista without a VM. Of course if Vista was as great as it was touted to be at first, I wouldn't be having this keyboard driven discussion.
The kool aid drinker tells me that Office 2000 won't run right on Vista and I have experienced enough other startling program crashes related to OS issues so I'll let him take the point there.
I have one personal copy of MS Office 2000 Pro I bought years ago but don't use anymore since shifting myself and family to OpenOffice. Maybe I'll sneak it in and try it out to see what happens on Vista.
BTW my two DVD Betas of Vista are hanging on my office corkboard. My current experiences with Vista SP1 haven't improved my initial impressions. The Betas impressed me so much I fried them in the microwave. Lots of nice sparkle and miniature chain-lightning. 5 to 6 seconds on High. Ding.
XWJ,
I hope the pinging of your microwave purged your MS ANGER V2.3. You have to ask yourself why Microsoft is the only game in town. After over 10 years of Linux bleating I still do not ever get asked by clients for Linux on the desktop or for that matter Linux Servers.
I have a number of clients, who I have inherited, that have linux installations, yet they NEED the IT resource all the time, there are so many different versions of Linux I chose to stay away from it having been involved with AT&T System V Unix early in my career and decided that it would never realistically make it to the user desktop. Cryptic commands (vi, yacc?) and even more cryptic error messages killed off any desire for me to pursue any kind of development career with Unix and resultantly Linux, even Digital Research had the error message sown up nicely with Concurrent DOS and CP/M-86.
Microsoft themselves, with their Xenix, had their toe in the water with Unix at one time, but decided not to proceed and I think they dumped the product out to SCO, I could be wrong on this as I had lost interest in the subject by this time.
There are those who having been shouting the Linux message and have been doing for over 10 years, yet they make little indentation on the Microsoft marketplace, I wonder why that is? In times of poor economic conditions, will droves switch to Linux because of it's percieved cost savings? No, as any cost savings will be absorbed and even exascerbated by having to have a Linux Tech either on site or at least on call.
If Linux works for you, then that's great. Microsoft works great for me and that's great too. Personally, I want to solve the business problem for my client rather than spend time decoding an incoherent linux error message.
Maybe, all the 'distros' will unify one day, maybe they will remain in the forum of the enthusiast, along with the likes of Electronics Weekly and Radio Amateur.
Happy New Year.
XWJ,
I hope the pinging of your microwave purged your MS ANGER V2.3. You have to ask yourself why Microsoft is the only game in town. After over 10 years of Linux bleating I still do not ever get asked by clients for Linux on the desktop or for that matter Linux Servers.
I have a number of clients, who I have inherited, that have linux installations, yet they NEED the IT resource all the time, there are so many different versions of Linux I chose to stay away from it having been involved with AT&T System V Unix early in my career and decided that it would never realistically make it to the user desktop. Cryptic commands (vi, yacc?) and even more cryptic error messages killed off any desire for me to pursue any kind of development career with Unix and resultantly Linux, even Digital Research had the error message sown up nicely with Concurrent DOS and CP/M-86.
Microsoft themselves, with their Xenix, had their toe in the water with Unix at one time, but decided not to proceed and I think they dumped the product out to SCO, I could be wrong on this as I had lost interest in the subject by this time.
There are those who having been shouting the Linux message and have been doing for over 10 years, yet they make little indentation on the Microsoft marketplace, I wonder why that is? In times of poor economic conditions, will droves switch to Linux because of it's percieved cost savings? No, as any cost savings will be absorbed and even exascerbated by having to have a Linux Tech either on site or at least on call.
If Linux works for you, then that's great. Microsoft works great for me and that's great too. Personally, I want to solve the business problem for my client rather than spend time decoding an incoherent linux error message.
Maybe, all the 'distros' will unify one day, maybe they will remain in the forum of the enthusiast, along with the likes of Electronics Weekly and Radio Amateur.
Happy New Year.
Its not a question of changing the office staff to an OS other than Windows, its a question of dealing with MS Office 97, 2000, 2003 and 2007. I wouldn't want the IT guys job for twice my salary. He's attempting to "homogenize" enough of the desktops in the office to the extent that they all run similar levels or versions of MICROSOFT software to make his job easier. The problem he has most issues with is getting the users to be able to work efficiently with Office 2007 when they were previously trained on Office 97, 2000, or 2003. ALL of which operate differently enough that bringing them up to date has become a tremendous burden.
My investigations into Linux are purely for application specific systems we use in the our rental operations on oil rigs. We will be "masking" the OS as much as possible to prevent users from operating the systems they rent from us in a manner that's basically unapproved and potentially dangerous.
My investigation of VMs was a touchstone I used to compare XP Pro SP3 with Vista Business Edition SP1. It is extremely obvious that Vista is at least 20% slower than XP Pro if not more when performing exactly the same tasks.
As far as the MSDN subscription I would insist on it in addition to the salary boost assuming management wanted me to move into IT. I did that 8 years ago and swore I was getting out of it. For the most part I have. I build and design embedded systems for our sold and rented product lines out of Windows XP Embedded and Linux.
Unfortunately Microsoft offers their software inducements much like the local drug pusher. First taste is free after that its going to cost ya big. An example is the very popular Express Editions of Visual Studio. Yes I downloaded them and used them to test and for a proof-of-concept proposal. Later the project I delivered used VS2005 Pro and it works well on XP Pro but NOT on Vista. So now what do I do, re-write for Vista or break out of the loop, jump ship to Linux and Java? The real advantage of Linux, assuming the applications you run on it are written in C, C++ or Java, is that you can lock it down and prevent upgrades without much fear of malware attacks.
Linux suffers even more from the User Interface issues than Microsoft products. I don't think it will ever replace desktops in a large-scale way until it can be setup with a desktop that mimics Windows. This new desktop or shell will have to hide all the Linux-only "features" behind the facade so it doesn't confuse the typical Windows user.
My complaint is that Microsoft seems to think that its business customers are willing to retrain its employees every time the employee is given a new Windows desktop computer. Training is an extremely expensive undertaking for medium to small companies. The biggest UI in use is Office and that is where Microsoft really screws up.
Office is Microsoft's flagship product. Why can't they set it up to work for everybody without requiring retraining with each release? With proper software design, re-training could be shortened or eliminated if the user could push one button in Office and 'revert" the User Interface to look like what they are used to seeing.
