Comment Re:Do we do the usual...? (Score 1) 244
DNRTFA: Do Not Resuscitate The Fine Article?
A modest proposal in so many cases...
Comment Re:Sneer if you like (Score 1) 424
Whoah. Wait a minute here. I agree that microsoft has a pretty good track record for backwards compatibility. And I will concede that I stopped using their crap over 6 years ago. But this rah-rah crap needs to be taken into perspective.
We all, I think, will concede that microsoft's biggest problem with their operating system is not their look and feel, not their inability to produce powerful applications, but the sheer amount of cruft in their applications and operating systems due to the "bolting" on of features that should have been inherent in the actual design.
Apple bit the bullet many years ago (as the System 7 team originally demanded of Amelio in order to give a true 32-bit multi-tasking os) when Jobs came back on board by making a new OS that was mostly incompatible with existing applications. But, since I fled Apple back in the 90's because of how crappy their OS had become, they have me back in their fold BECAUSE they took this step and thus made their platform finally stable.
I still use Linux and OS X on a daily basis and eschew anything microsoft. But here's the deal, guys. microsoft has to take the hit and actually redesign their system to be SECURE, NETWORKED, AND MODERN. This was promised with NT. No dice. Was promised with Windows Millenium. Again, nothing changed. 2000? Nope. XP? Better, but still the promise was broken. Each time they promised the new system was "rewrite." And each time, it was a lie.
I don't expect microsoft to protect all stupid users from themselves. But promising these features and the stability and reliability I have had with Apple and Linux for many years and then using those promises merely for marketability without being able to produce is the biggest fraud in our industry (well, aside from Duke Nuke'm Forever, maybe).
Eventually backwards compatibility, as sacred as it should be, has to bow to modernity. And microsoft needs to figure this out.
We all, I think, will concede that microsoft's biggest problem with their operating system is not their look and feel, not their inability to produce powerful applications, but the sheer amount of cruft in their applications and operating systems due to the "bolting" on of features that should have been inherent in the actual design.
Apple bit the bullet many years ago (as the System 7 team originally demanded of Amelio in order to give a true 32-bit multi-tasking os) when Jobs came back on board by making a new OS that was mostly incompatible with existing applications. But, since I fled Apple back in the 90's because of how crappy their OS had become, they have me back in their fold BECAUSE they took this step and thus made their platform finally stable.
I still use Linux and OS X on a daily basis and eschew anything microsoft. But here's the deal, guys. microsoft has to take the hit and actually redesign their system to be SECURE, NETWORKED, AND MODERN. This was promised with NT. No dice. Was promised with Windows Millenium. Again, nothing changed. 2000? Nope. XP? Better, but still the promise was broken. Each time they promised the new system was "rewrite." And each time, it was a lie.
I don't expect microsoft to protect all stupid users from themselves. But promising these features and the stability and reliability I have had with Apple and Linux for many years and then using those promises merely for marketability without being able to produce is the biggest fraud in our industry (well, aside from Duke Nuke'm Forever, maybe).
Eventually backwards compatibility, as sacred as it should be, has to bow to modernity. And microsoft needs to figure this out.
Journal Journal: Looking for me?
Please go to my blog if looking for personal gripes and complaints.
