Quote:
Originally Posted by manolito
All of this only applies if you don't make backups regularly. And if you do not make backups then all of this "Nannying" stuff will not really protect you, it will only give you a false sense of being protected. At the cost of not really being able to control YOUR computer. The M$ philosophy is that the computer really belongs to THEM and not to the user, they decide what users can do with it and what they can't.
|
my dude, i think you might be
slightly overreacting just a
little bit to having to press a "yes i'm sure i know what i'm doing" button every once in a while
you can trivially override all of these things i mentioned, they just warn you if you're doing something weird. you can still install whatever kernel mode thing you like, if you insist. no need for the tinfoil hat.
by the way, backups won't save you from a moldavian keylogger stealing your credit card number, and i sure hope you have your backups set up in a way that doesn't expose them to things like cryptolocker. also, restoring backups is a far bigger pain in the ass than having to click "yes" every once in a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmeyer
Some software is well-designed; some is not. Win10 is not.
One thing I learned back in the 1980s (when I was in the middle of things): some software is easy to learn, and some software is easy to use. Win10 went overboard trying to make it easy to learn, but in the process, it became hard to use.
|
ah, the power user argument. yes, it is true that things like (for example) well-designed keyboard interfaces can make you very fast at navigating computer programs, for the price of having to train yourself on the interface.
that design paradigm is almost completly dead today. certain professional applications still adhere to it, but the vast majority of applications don't, and this thread is a very good illustration of why: the user becomes inflexible. once you've invested the time in learning the interface, switching to another interface is seen as a huge barrier and most people flat out refuse to do it. i have several colleagues who once upon a time learned to use a text-mode editor like vim or emacs, with the result that they (in their own words) are completely unable to switch to any other editor or IDE. using a vim-like keymap for e.g. visual studio code just "feels wrong" and so they accept the inconvenience of (for example) not having an interactive debugger in their editor. sure, they edit text faster than i do, but i don't think they're really any more productive than i am in the long run.
it's similar to learning the dvorak keyboard layout - sure, you (probably) become a bit more efficient at typing, but it's at the expense of never being able to use another person's keyboard. learning an interface is an investment, and investments come with a certain penalty to flexibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmeyer
Finally, I strongly object to product revisions which change things just for the sake of changing them. We used to call this "putting your scent" on the software, meaning that the programmer wanted to have his/her personality imprinted on the software, but without actually accomplishing anything useful. I'm still looking for even one useful feature in Win7 or Win10, but I haven't found a thing that, when I go back to XP, I find myself missing it.
|
dan luu (whom i linked above) has
a fairly nuanced view of the ui compatibility argument that you might possibly be interested in. not saying this to be combative, i genuinely think it's an interesting read and i can see both sides of the argument.