On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Paul McNett <[email protected]> wrote:

> Okay, take a look at the Windows 7 "Programs and Features" applet. Now, tell 
> me: what
> is the difference between "programs" and "features" in this context? All I 
> see are
> "programs" listed there. Are "programs" and "features" mutually exclusive, 
> are all
> "programs" "features", are all "features" "programs"? In any of those cases, 
> the
> applet should be labeled either "Programs" or "Features", but not both.
>
> And now recall the old saying: "It isn't a bug, it's a feature."
>
> I just get the feeling that they were going for as wordy a design as 
> possible, and
> some team sat there for a couple hours brainstorming what to rename 
> "Add/Remove
> Programs" to. Can't just call it "Programs", we need another word here. 
> Anyone?
>
> Windows 7's control panel, as far as I can tell, is just more wordy, more 
> glitzy.
> It's window dressing to the individual applets we've all known and loved for 
> 15 years
> now.
------------------------

Is it a full moon there?  What a bunch of PMS I just read.

I have been running W7 since it was released and have not really had a
hard time in removing a program or an app.  Found that no 64 bit
printer drivers on the 32 bit XP workstation was a tough one to figure
out.

Past that is was all pretty painless.  Granted I load the SW I wanted
and have not had to do much to change since.

YMMV
-- 
Stephen Russell

Sr. Production Systems Programmer
CIMSgts

901.246-0159 cell

_______________________________________________
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
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** 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.

Reply via email to