At 07:24 PM 7/10/2006 +0100, Alan Bourke wrote:
...
> I always love how new versions of Windows distinguish themselves by
> not looking/working the same as the previous versions,
Um ... the way Windows works has been pretty much the same through
NT/2000/XP/2003 - apart from certain configuration things being moved.
...
This hasn't been my experience. But maybe we're talking about different
aspects.
I imagine Windows loads files for execution similar to how it always has.
The file system itself has only had a couple major changes. Windows was
able to use TCP/IP for network comms at least back to Win 95. Of course,
none of that is UI stuff.
Now, in my experience, the UI's have changed quite a bit. So much so that I
generally always try to set things to the Win2000 'approach'. But even
then, the dialogs, their sequence, where the options are stored, has
changed a whole lot. The main reason I know this is because over the past
couple years I've helped users try to get their PC's working (mainly OS and
networking config stuff). They bought new machines - so it had XP - and I
had Win2000. Helping them over the phone was pretty much a nightmare.
Almost nothing matched up on my screen as we were stepping through various
operations.
So I agree with Ed. This industry is absurd. MS puts on the face that the
new 'eye candy' is fantastic. But then they spread FUD about switching to
any other OS because of UI retraining costs, etc.
-Charlie
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
