Microsoft windows ease of use decreases productivity

If this isn't exactly what you wanted, please try our Search (there's a LOT of techy and non-techy stuff here about Linux, Unix, Mac OS X and just computers in general!):

From: Tony Lawrence <tony@aplawrence.com>
Subject: Re: Is it possible
References: <95uisj$vh0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <LgCi6.48$bV1.2385@nnrp1.sbc.net> <9qq3c5AO8ok6Ew0p@prestwich-smile-gemach.freeserve.co.uk> <3A92DFAE.FEE4B3BD@aplawrence.com> <Q+m2FQBoW5k6Ewgg@prestwich-smile-gemach.freeserve.co.uk> <3A93B056.DAED16C@aplawrence.com> <fIbVY$Cfi$k6EwDO@prestwich-smile-gemach.freeserve.co.uk> <3A9455E2.D59204@aplawrence.com> <_L%k6.133201$Z2.1768384@nnrp1.uunet.ca> 
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:38:20 -0500

Ian R wrote:

(foolishness and unnecessary text clipped)

> 
> And exactly what protocols and standards have they screwed up ?

Java is the best known, but there are dozens if not hundreds
of smaller little perversions spread here and there, causing
constant annoyance for the rest of us.  A handful or so have
been mentioned in this thread, but of course the MSOFT
zealots just ignore those..

> I suppose SCO has perfect implementations of  'these supposedly perverted
> standards' ?

It's not a matter of "perfect".  Everybody makes
*programming* mistakes.  It's when you deliberately or
otherwise prevent/screw up/etc.  other OS'es from accessing
protocols on your OS that you are guilty.  

> > The alternative is that people who DO have the knowledge
> > provide the scripts, procedures, etc.  That's a management
> > issue, of course, but the dumbness of Windows encourages
> > people to do these stupid things.  If they couldn't do them
> > so easily, they'd have to ask someone to get the task done-
> > and that would likely be much more efficient, safe, and
> > accurate.
> >
> 
> Back to planet earth. Scripts ? To write a memo ? 

No, but when the SAME memo needs to be sent every month with
perhaps some new or replaced information to a list, the
typical MSOFT company does it by hand- MAYBE with a mail
merge, but often not even that.

(PLEASE: for the morons who reply without reading the entire
post: please read at least TWO of the paragraphs that follow
before you waste everyone's time with a stupid post)

Let's take a real life example:  I have a list of folks who
want to receive email when new pages are added to my web
site.  Naturally I use Majordomo for the list, and naturally
I have a script that generates the text- it figures out what
I've added recently, creates the text, decides whether it is
enough to send out a mailing,  and sends it to Majordomo if
it is.  In other words, the entire thing happens without
intervention or conscious effort on my part.  I gurantee
that 99% of MSOFT shops faced with the same need would do it
by hand BECAUSE THEY CAN AND BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW ANY
OTHER WAY.

And of course this same thing CAN BE DONE on Windows- 
understand that I am not saying you NEED Unix to do this-
just that the "ease of use" and obscurity of Windows
scripting causes this inefficiency.


>How can you even mention
> efficient if in your world every time someone needed to type a memo they had
> to go get a tech ? What does a tech know about business objectives,
> forecasting, scheduling etc ? Sounds more and more like someone is bitter
> about not keeping up with technology.

Huh?

Again:  I am MSCE certified - or technically, was- I haven't
kept up with the tests, but I work with MS OS'es every day-
I have to, because 99.99% of the time those are the clients,
and very often there's NT mixed in too for authentication. 
I "keep up" with technology.  I have to.  My income depends
on it, so you had better believe I don't keep in the dark. 
I don't consider myself "expert" at Windows- I do find it
amusing that sometimes I know more than the supposed expert
on site..

As to the rest, a tech *consultant* has to know quite a bit
about business objectives,
forecasting, scheduling, accounting, inventory control and
more- if I didn't, I couldn't do my job, which is precisely
fitting technology to business objectives, forecasting, etc.

Sheesh :-)

> 
> >
> > Nonsense.  A professional typing pool is far more efficient
> > and far less costly than what we have now- inexperienced
> > people futzing with fonts, adjusting their margins, wasting
> > time..  I see it everywhere I go- legions of middle
> > management people wasting countless hours preparing ugly
> > documents that could be done faster and better by a
> > professional.
> >
> 
> Most secretaries know more about fonts, margins and their word processors in
> general than any technical professional including myself and apparently you.

That's the damn point.  Can you try to follow this?

A professional secretary can produce a consistent, good
looking letter in a quarter of the time and at far less cost
than someone who is not proficient.  Yet the "ease of use"
has caused the elimination of professional typists almost
everywhere-  managers everywhere produce their own crappy,
inconsistent, ugly letters- BECAUSE THEY CAN.


> I suppose you consider sending a text file to lp a professional document ?

Duh.  But once again, the Microsoft way is often
inefficient.  If you know anything about Unix Sys V
printing, you know what a printer "class" is- it's a
"printer" that actually is a pool of similar printers- a job
sent to that printer will print on the first available
printer in the pool.  It's a very handy abstraction, and
although I've never seen it, I bet there's some way to do
something similar in Msoft OS's.  But I've never seen any
one do it, because the "obvious" way is too easy- 

And of course, I can come up with examples of "printers"
that need to process their input: make substitutions, copy
to faxes, etc. : stuff that CAN be done with MSFT but almost
never is- if certain documents need to be both faxed and
printed, I guarantee it will be done manually and with two
steps- again, wasting time and money.  And if it needs to be
preprocessed, that will be an entirely different step.

> 
> >
> > > But that was the whole point. Remember, Microsoft's mission statement
> > > was "A computer on every desktop". Note the word "every". They want
> > > every single person to be able to use them, so they need to cater for
> > > the lowest common denominator.
> >
> >
> > But that costs us so much..
> >
> 
> What cost ?

The cost of inefficiency.  Why is it that people can't seem
to remember even three paragraphs back?  Has the world
really become this dumb?


> You want to point out the benefits of your OS of choice ? That's fine.

Sigh.  That's NOT what I was doing here.  I'm not touting
Unix- I'm pointing out the problems with MSOFT- if there is
something I do with Unix that I couldn't do with MSOFT I
can't think of it right now- the point is that DOING it is
often obscure or difficult- THAT'S the problem and THAT's
what I don't like about MSOFT OS'es and THAT's why they
retard efficiency.  

> Haven't seen any from you. You want to point out weaknesses in other OS's ?
> That's fine. So far all I've heard unrealistic biased spouting.

And all I see is folks who can't see the obvious and can't
follow a thread..

Well, at least you aren't posting in HTML- another Microsoft
"encouragement" that they should burn in hell for..


-- 
Tony Lawrence (tony@aplawrence.com)
SCO/Linux articles, help, book reviews, tests, 
job listings and more : 

Macworld Digital Music & Video Superguide $12.95

Jump to Comments

Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.

Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.

We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.