7 Mar
2001
7 Mar
'01
10:51 a.m.
At 03:05 PM 3/7/01 -0600, you wrote:
(1) Their products' popularity and commonness is
largely *not* a result of the
product's quality.
As any corporate droid can tell you, "quality" is
satisfaction of user's perceived needs. It's not to be
confused with the nerd's idea of technical superiority.
(2) Their products are designed for idiots. Computers
are tools for smart
people. Should we let evolution gradually filter out stupid people from the
species, or should we allow them to be our least common denominator, thereby
limiting the power of the species as a whole?
You don't get out much, do you? Have you ever met someone
who doesn't use a computer daily, or who only uses one
begrudgingly at work? Most Microsoft products have too
many features, which isn't what I'd call "idiot" software.
"Idiot" software is something like Adobe PhotoDeluxe,
where you can't do a thing without a wizard.
(3) Their software engineers have given far too much
design control to their
marketing droids.
A marketroid is incapable of specifying the blatant
security holes they've added to their products. It's the
job of the programmer to do it right.
(4) Think Britney Spears, but only in software.
Oops, they did it again?
- John