JorgeA

Windows 8 - Deeper Impressions

6,162 posts in this topic

Sure, but desktop and login screen can also look better, more elegant and modern. After all hardware of current computers is so powerful that why not have shiny and glassy desktop and login screen as an option?

Sure, but the whole point is that the good MS guys are providing more and more "bells and whistles" in order to hide the removal of NEEDED features and/or the overcomplicating the life of the business (or anyway professional) user.

The feature of changing desktop or logon screen (or both) is a feature (optional), not a "main, needed, cannot-live-without" sort of thing.

The possibility (if one has the time and will) to change the look (or if you prefer to "skin" an OS) is a good thing :), but not something that someone actually needing the PC to do some real world work will actually drool about.

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but desktop and login screen can also look better, more elegant and modern. After all hardware of current computers is so powerful that why not have shiny and glassy desktop and login screen as an option?

Sure, but the whole point is that the good MS guys are providing more and more "bells and whistles" in order to hide the removal of NEEDED features and/or the overcomplicating the life of the business (or anyway professional) user.

The feature of changing desktop or logon screen (or both) is a feature (optional), not a "main, needed, cannot-live-without" sort of thing.

The possibility (if one has the time and will) to change the look (or if you prefer to "skin" an OS) is a good thing :), but not something that someone actually needing the PC to do some real world work will actually drool about.

jaclaz

Okay, so that's what you meant at your original post. I haven't seen full Windows Aero back yet. So I just wonder what you mean when you said MS are providing more "bells and whistles"? What "bells and whistles"? Windows 8 is visually ugly and does not only remove features but is visually step back as well.

Edited by Aero7x64
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but desktop and login screen can also look better, more elegant and modern. After all hardware of current computers is so powerful that why not have shiny and glassy desktop and login screen as an option?

Sure, but the whole point is that the good MS guys are providing more and more "bells and whistles" in order to hide the removal of NEEDED features and/or the overcomplicating the life of the business (or anyway professional) user.

The feature of changing desktop or logon screen (or both) is a feature (optional), not a "main, needed, cannot-live-without" sort of thing.

The possibility (if one has the time and will) to change the look (or if you prefer to "skin" an OS) is a good thing :), but not something that someone actually needing the PC to do some real world work will actually drool about.

jaclaz

Okay, so that's what you meant at your original post. I haven't seen full Windows Aero back yet. So I just wonder what you mean when you said MS are providing more "bells and whistles"? What "bells and whistles"? Windows 8 is visually ugly and does not only remove features but is visually step back as well.

Yeah, IMHO you and jaclaz are both right: MSFT is busily removing both "useful features" (i.e., the Start Menu) and "bells and whistles" (i.e., Aero Glass), while adding annoying or pointless ones (Metro Start Screen, charms bar). Close to, but not exactly what jaclaz said. Somewhat in-between what he said and what you said.

--JorgeA

EDIT: clarification

Edited by JorgeA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion here has turned toward Surrealism in the last day or two. Well, here's a surreal bit of Windows 8.1 information: Paul Thurrott reports that, while Metro apps require the use of Libraries "for content management," the libraries interface is now hidden (not visible by default). :wacko:

So basically you have to know they exist, before you can go looking for them. :blink: Maybe the right term isn't "surrealism,", but Dada:

dadc3a1_3.jpg?w=230&h=300

Marcel Duchamp, Fountain

Source

Anybody here have insight on this, um, quirk of Windows 8.1 ?

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across this post in the Aero Glass for Win8 RC4 thread:

Do you think the people at Microsoft have some master plan to control how you use your OS or something? The "restrictive" stuff that they put in Windows is for the concern of security and nothing more. I hope you're not one of those conspiracy theorists who believe that everytime a windows update breaks some hack it's because Microsoft purposely put in some way to prevent it.

Read the whole post for the context. Any thoughts on this? Personally, I don't think there is a conscious "master" plan to control how people use their computers (although there may in fact be, for all we know), but I do believe that that is a predictable consequence of what they're doing over at Microsoft with Metro, the Windows Store, secure boot: in the end, the user will lead a computer life whose activities will be strictly constrained by what the powers-that-be in Redmond (and, likely, functionaries in the various capital cities of the world) shall deem it fit to allow; and the PC will become not much better than an interactive TV set. This is motivated IMHO (at least on Microsoft's part) not by control freakiness, but by Apple envy; and the process of OS cretinization will be helped along by folks who can't (or won't) see past the end of their noses and will cheer it all on, as long as they feel "safe" or get cool new toys to play with.

Concerning the alleged security rationale, I'm skeptical, and in any event giving up freedom for security is not a bargain I am eager to make.

--JorgeA

Edited by JorgeA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, someone has to say this:

The idea (if you use the PC for actual work), is that you don't spend much time looking at the desktop, 99.99% of the time you will be looking into one or more programs.

Work is fine and all, however ...

oTDnpDZ.jpg

p3qhTrO.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have "studied" the behaviour of business users since years :yes: .

Everyone - as always - can be categorized in no more than 5 categories:

  1. the "dumb" - aka "trained monkeys" these are people that will only learn the very basics of the (usually very vertical) program(s) they use, nothing more, nothing less, they will change nothing in the setup the IT guy/gal prepares
  2. the "artistic dumb" - aka "trained monkeys who fancy colours" these are the people that know nothing more than the first category BUT (since Windows 3.x times) like to change each and every icon in the system AND place ALL of them on the desktop, the result is a system that noone can use easily but them (yes, on all systems "my PC" is an icon representing more or less a computer, tendentially first icon on the top left, but on their computers it will be in fourth row, third column, with an icon representing the sun or the Apollo 11 :w00t:. They tend to think that they are "smart" or anyway much smarter than the first category, but remain "within the limits" of the basic settings of the OS GUI.
  3. the "flat user" - aka the "productive kind", these people will leave, like the category #1 above, everything as setup initially, but will add no more than 5 or 6 icons (actually connected with the 5 or 6 programs they use) with a meaningful icon
  4. the "curious jerk" - these people are the "dangerous ones", they are similar to category #2, BUT they will experiment, they will change extensions, move programs and data here and there, install (or attempt to install) any kind of crappy programs, etc. a noticeable part of the time they spend in front of computers is about experimenting (BTW without any actual knowledge of what they are doing), a sub-category of these will not only ruin their own installs/PCs, but they will also change (or induce to change) their coworkers installs and add any kind of "nice" app.
  5. the "knowledgeable chap" these people are into two sub-categories, those that use their knowledge to actually customize (very slightly) their system in a way that easens or make faster their work experience (a super-set of the flat user) and those that use their knowledge to customize and add any kind of visual crap to the interface because it's nice or good looking (a super-set of both the "artistic dumb" and "curious jerks") while still doing "properly" (i.e. without damaging the normal use of the system, only bettering it's visual appearance).

All MS Operating systems (till now) would allow each of the above categories to have "their" way (right or wrong as it might be).

The advent of the NT systems (as compared to the Win3.x/Win9x/Me series) somewhat limited (thanks goodness ;) ) the possibilities of category #4, leaving the possibilities open to the other ones.

Windows 8 seems to largely cut out of the play also people belonging to category #5 :ph34r: and seriously limit the productivity of category #3 :w00t: (because you can't even do those changes that are actually useful to suit your own way of working) but also frustrates the "artistic efforts" of category #2.

I believe that there are some common traits between Aero7x64's opinions and mines because we both belong (hopefully) to category #5, only each of us belongs to one of the two sub-categories :thumbup .

BTW, I have already seen people in category #2 drool at "live tiles" ;) .

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried to customize Windows 8 inside virtual machine indeed and that has been successful. I have installed certain skin pack, start menu replacement and Aero Glass for Win8 RC3. But none of those third party replacements are as good as native ones. And Windows 8.1 preview has caused skin pack + Aero Glass for Win8 RC3 to stop working. Especially skin pack has been problematic inside Windows 8 virtual machine already many times. I want both features and visuals that were there in Windows 7 back natively. I don't want use Windows 8 other way than inside virtual machine before both features and visuals of Windows 7 are back . Third party skin packs etc. other customization tools to Windows 8 can be problematic and broken any time by some update. This is why I'm still waiting Microsoft to bring full Windows Aero and start menu back as options. I also don't want Microsoft to think that I'm supporting their vision and buying Windows 8 and then customizing it with third party programs would be counted as support to their vision. So while customization is nice it isn't offering anything as good as native options would offer in Windows 8 case. I'm going to wait for Windows 9 as that time Microsoft most likely will restore start menu and full Windows Aero after losing enough money.

Edited by Aero7x64
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I came across this post in the Aero Glass for Win8 RC4 thread:
Do you think the people at Microsoft have some master plan to control how you use your OS or something? The "restrictive" stuff that they put in Windows is for the concern of security and nothing more. I hope you're not one of those conspiracy theorists who believe that everytime a windows update breaks some hack it's because Microsoft purposely put in some way to prevent it.

Read the whole post for the context. Any thoughts on this? Personally, I don't think there is a conscious "master" plan to control how people use their computers (although there may in fact be, for all we know), but I do believe that that is a predictable consequence of what they're doing over at Microsoft with Metro, the Windows Store, secure boot: in the end, the user will lead a computer life whose activities will be strictly constrained by what the powers-that-be in Redmond (and, likely, functionaries in the various capital cities of the world) shall deem it fit to allow; and the PC will become not much better than an interactive TV set. This is motivated IMHO (at least on Microsoft's part) not by control freakiness, but by Apple envy; and the process of OS cretinization will be helped along by folks who can't (or won't) see past the end of their noses and will cheer it all on, as long as they feel "safe" or get cool new toys to play with.

Concerning the alleged security rationale, I'm skeptical, and in any event giving up freedom for security is not a bargain I am eager to make.

~sigh~ Lot of shallow thinking going around. Shallow, because they throw this stuff out without thinking it through. Each point there is senseless IMHO ...

  • Do you think the people at Microsoft have some master plan to control how you use your OS or something?

Well aside from the industrial strength use of a strawman there, they do control much of how we use it by virtue of what actual OS is released and what is killed. And it would be much worse today if it hadn't been for periodic pushback events in the past, pushback against Draconian DRM ever-present in the OS stationed on-guard watching out for Big Hollywood interests. They do have a master plan though, and I'll get back to this later.
  • The "restrictive" stuff that they put in Windows is for the concern of security and nothing more.

Some kind of Irony coming from a commenter in a thread about restoring Aero, which was yanked for reasons completely unrelated to security. As were gadgets, contrary to their lies. As was everything they killed along the way. If security were actually a concern MSIE would never have been allowed to operate. Active-X controls would never even have had an option to silently download and run. The firewall in XP would have been two-sided and the later firewalls would have been backported. MSIE would have been sandboxed years ago and itself would be backported to every version of Windows. If they cared about security there is no doubt that these all of things and more would be front and center, not mere afterthoughts occurring years later. I think he is confusing "paying lip service" with genuine concern about security. It's obvious many people simply do not realize that almost everything done by Microsoft is not for users, but for Microsoft itself.

  • I hope you're not one of those conspiracy theorists who believe that everytime a windows update breaks some hack it's because Microsoft purposely put in some way to prevent it.

One of the most obvious coping mechanisms of those in denial is the use of "conspiracy theory theory" ( CTT ), which means to invent a ridiculous strawman, setting the bar to an unattainable level of proof required to defeat it. So in these cases the CTT calls for the dark smoky back room filled with shady characters seen in the X-Files, who are plotting to make Windows users lives miserable. Unless the minutes of these meetings surface and get exposed on NeoWin or The Verge the person in denial gets to sleep comfortably knowing all is right with the world.

Back to the "master plan" ... one easy way to test a hypothesis ( e.g., "Do you think the people at Microsoft have some master plan" ) is to invert it and see what you get. So, is it possible that Microsoft has NO master plan? Are they really operating day to day willy-nilly, only reacting to events instead of following a carefully planned agenda? This is a top Wall Street property, AAA rated, to think they are operating their flagship on a day to day basis is absurd. They have stated many times that they are in the midst of converting to a SaaS subscription paradigm, better known as a parasitic leech and you better believe this transition is loaded with carefully laid plans, among which Windows figures prominently. So they have plans for their OS, he can call it a "master plan" if he likes, or not. Doesn't matter. The plan has been deduced and fleshed out all across the blogosphere, especially here in this thread.

That plan starts with ... Building a new platform from the ground up, a clean slate that they can control both the hardware and software. This is the Apple-envy portion. WinRT is the goal here, a sad, trivial, amateurish platform that truly is Playskool level but satisfies the sheeples' urge for mass quantities and rapid deployment of Stores full of childish fart apps. And that's fine if they want it. ... but ... What should they do with the x86 universe, the open architecture that brought them to the pinnacle of the technological business world in the first place? That's where it gets icky. And it is where they cross the line of becoming an outright evil corporation by revisiting antitrust and anticompetitive behavior once again. And, yes, it also includes a "master plan".

What they are doing is casting a vast wide net to catch as many of the x86 fish as possible before they get away. By inserting all the locked-down walled-garden concepts of WinRT plan into Windows 8, like the Store, they are steering millions of customers on the neutral x86 playing field into a training program for future Apple'tards, err I mean MicroTards. This is the nefarious portion of the plan. And if there was any competition that had survived their previous anticompetitive forays, well, they would be up in arms right now. I firmly believe this plan was hatched around the WinXP timeframe, after Gates stepped down, after the Judgment that was watered down from the original monopoly busting verdict, when they were on a kind of probation which lasted until 2007. They likely planned the move to copy Apple during the Judgment and began executing it since Vista. In short, it means they are getting out of the neutral OS producing business. And with it goes any related developer software, Technet, and all complexity. It is easy to be Apple. It is NOT easy to be neutral. So Apple it is.

The consequence of this is that user freedoms will be dramatically impacted without a neutral OS, or even one that only pretends to be neutral. The computing world will become Balkanized once again, as it was from around 1988 to about 1993 when Windows finally became dominant and developers flocked to a monopolized platform but was at least a stationary target. Expect aisles full of Toys'r'us-like stores selling all kinds of children computers appealing to the derp, with nothing matching the extraordinary trajectory we were on and should still following at this point in time. Microsoft's target is even lower than Apple's though, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for the dumbest of the dumb, and judging by NeoWin, they are being fairly successful. If you can imagine the big record companies that sell a wide range of artists music, Microsoft would be the one only signing Michael Jackson, Madonna and Justin Bieber. The talent ( I'm talking music here, not dancing or showmanship ) is an inch deep but sells millions. Windows 8 is Justin Bieber's idea.

Most of the 'Tards find no fault in such a plan. The say it's good business. Sure. It would also be easier to only sell Chevettes rather then Corvettes, it would be much easier to turn a 5-star restaurant into McDonald's, for all whiskey to be generic and no beer to be German, for all furniture to be plywood, and all clothes to be made in China. Catering to the lowest common denominator is business 101 apparently, it is truly sheeplenomics. But catering only to the lowest common denominator means no top-shelf anything. This is called the "race to the bottom" and the 'Tards that embrace it and rationalize it must be called out and ridiculed. The question is how much of it will they accept before they wake up and go "waitaminit, I didn't want that to happen". My guess is they will accept a lot. I suggest people start saving all their personal computers, all the parts, all the software, maybe reup to Technet one last time, in short grab everything for a rainy day because thanks to the sheeple, the forecast for the future is very cloudy.

We're only fighting a small piece of the battle here in Windows land. Truly it crosses over into all these other areas of life. We all see it everywhere, all around us, every day. Strip malls full of ever-changing little stores, closed-up big box outlets, a general lack of quality. And it permeates into even service industries that are now staffed with narcissistic spoiled brats yacking on their cellphones and when they can pry themselves away from the social world, they do a bad job anyway. So Microsoft is not unique in this regard, but they are guilty of lack of integrity and quality. In a free market in a free society there is no law that requires a company to make a great product ( rather than a sufficient product ), there is no law that requires anyone to go above and beyond the call of duty. That comes from personal integrity and from high principles and values and from a personal aversion to failure and need for perfectionism. But there are elements in a free market and free society that promote this. Those elements come from high customer expectations, and feedback. They do NOT come from enablers and fanboys and MetroTards. Living through the x86 software era you couldn't help but notice some programs were pure crap, but others were written by devs that really really cared about their code and documentation. So we know we have all kinds of people in the world because we have seen it everyday. The market elements of customer feedback called out the crap and praised the good stuff to the ends of the Internet. It is the only thing that can really save Microsoft, and by extension the Personal Computer itself.

The ironic thing is that the original Judgment against Microsoft, and the order to break it up into two parts would have been the absolute BEST thing for us, and Microsoft itself. :yes: Getting the neutral Windows OS away from the rest of the clowns up there into a separate place where they would answer to everyone would have been ideal. Most importantly it would have removed the irresistible temptation for Microsoft to use the OS as leverage to steer the Sheeple into the Microverse as they are plotting as we speak. Windows would be far more cross platform friendly and so many developer avenues would not have turned into dead-ends. Unfortunately the government spent so much time hammering them over Netscape ( thanks a lot Barksdale ) that they actually drummed up sympathy for Microsoft. I know this because I was one of them ( boy was I wrong! ). It seemed really dumb to complain about a free browser in the OS because other browsers worked fine. And the downside of making them remove it meant opening the door to every other non-essential part of the OS ( Calc, Notepad, etc ) to also be challenged by every Tom, Dick and Harry on the planet. Meanwhile the backroom OEM deals got stepped over chasing Netscape down a rabbit hole. ~sigh~ Anyway, I'll close with what was said at the time ...

The trial began on May 18, 1998, with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of twenty U.S. states suing Microsoft for illegally thwarting competition in order to protect and extend its software monopoly. In October 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice also sued Microsoft for violating a 1994 consent decree by forcing computer makers to include its Internet browser as a part of the installation of Windows software.

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[4] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[5] Businessweek reported that "early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of email Gates both sent and received."[6] Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president, as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free.[7]

A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified.[8] Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff. "They ended up filming it—grabbing the wrong screen shot", he said of the incident. Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed. Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production".[9] Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified.[10]

When the judge ordered Microsoft to offer a version of Windows which did not include Internet Explorer, Microsoft responded that the company would offer manufacturers a choice: one version of Windows that was obsolete, or another that did not work properly. The judge asked, "It seemed absolutely clear to you that I entered an order that required that you distribute a product that would not work?" David D. Cole, a Microsoft vice president, replied, "In plain English, yes. We followed that order. It wasn't my place to consider the consequences of that."[11] Microsoft vigorously defended itself in the public arena, arguing that its attempts to "innovate" were under attack by rival companies jealous at its success, and that government litigation was merely their pawn (see public choice theory). A full-page ad run in the Washington Post and the New York Times on June 2, 1999, by The Independent Institute delivered "An Open Letter to President Clinton From 240 Economists On Antitrust Protectionism." It said, in part, "Consumers did not ask for these antitrust actions – rival business firms did. Consumers of high technology have enjoyed falling prices, expanding outputs, and a breathtaking array of new products and innovations. ... Increasingly, however, some firms have sought to handicap their rivals by turning to government for protection. Many of these cases are based on speculation about some vaguely specified consumer harm in some unspecified future, and many of the proposed interventions will weaken successful U.S. firms and impede their competitiveness abroad."[12]

Judgment[edit]

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others.[13] Judgment was split in two parts. On April 3, 2000, he issued his conclusions of law, according to which Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision.[14]

On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its "remedy". According to that judgment, Microsoft would have to be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.[14][15]

You better believe that this is what set current events into motion. They simply bided their time until the remedy ran out and now are making their move. Things are going to become radically different at the end of this story. But there is nothing stopping everyone in the USA from contacting their two Senators and one Representatives as well as their State Attorney General and the FTC and the DoJ directly and remind them of this convicted monopolist that skated away on a technicality and now is right back doing it again. Other countries may have their own bureaucracy that can be contacted personally. Doing nothing is the only way to guarantee that they will get away with it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great write-up Charlotte.

Though, I am skeptical that the NuMicrosoft approach is something that they have envisioned since the DOJ case. I think it's primarily the Apple-envy that led to this. Don't underestimate the power ADS has on the psyche of a CEO!

Apple-envy deranges the thought-processes of managers. Here's a great example:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fmeldung%2FSAP-Gruender-will-Laeden-wie-bei-Apple-1912720.html

(translated with Google-translator)

SAP founder wants stores like Apple

SAP co-founder and supervisory board chairman Hasso Plattner has advised the Walldorf-based business software company to open their own shops [and to follow Apple's example].

"Apple does [stores], Burberry, now Microsoft. SAP [should too] I have communicated some years ago, they should think about a shop idea, even if it is difficult for a company with business customers,"

"The future is a combination of sales and consulting in the Internet and stores with high visibility in the major urban centers of the world."

Here you have it. He wants SAP (SAP!) to clone Apple-stores. If some of you don't know who SAP is: They are playing in the same field like Oracle and Salesforce, only with an even bigger focus on enterprise-only software.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAP_AG

SAP AG is a German multinational software corporation that makes enterprise software to manage business operations and customer relations. Headquartered in Walldorf, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, with regional offices around the world, SAP is the leader in the market of enterprise applications in terms of software and software-related service.[2]

The company's best-known software products are its enterprise resource planning application systems and management (SAP ERP), its enterprise data warehouse product – SAP Business Warehouse (SAP BW), SAP BusinessObjects software, and most recently, Sybase mobile products and in-memory computing appliance SAP HANA. SAP is one of the largest software companies in the world.

SAP's products focus on Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP). The company's main product is SAP ERP. The current version is SAP ERP 6.0 and is part of the SAP Business Suite. Its previous name was R/3. The "R" of SAP R/3 stood for realtime. The number 3 related to the 3-tier architecture: database, application server and client (SAPgui). R/2, which ran on a Mainframe architecture, was the predecessor of R/3. Before R/2 came System RF, later dubbed R/1.

SAP ERP is one of five enterprise applications in SAP's Business Suite. The other four applications are:

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) – helps companies acquire and retain customers, gain marketing and customer insight

Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) – helps manufacturers with product-related information

Supply Chain Management (SCM) – helps companies with the process of resourcing its manufacturing and service processes

Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) – enables companies to procure from suppliers

SAPGui640ScreenShot.png

Imagine how fed-up with crazy you have to be, to follow Apple's footsteps with THIS product portfolio!

Apple-envy (ADS - Apple Derangement Syndrome) transforms the whole industry into one huge nuthouse.

Edited by Formfiller
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, someone has to say this:

The idea (if you use the PC for actual work), is that you don't spend much time looking at the desktop, 99.99% of the time you will be looking into one or more programs.

This desktop background is very good :yes: :

1322434841.or.21122.png

and the corresponding login page does what it is supposed to do (logging on):

hviiJ.png

:angel

jaclaz

Its interesting that you bring this up. For years (as probably with most people) I was interested in wallpapers, icons, screensavers, etc but as time went on I stopped bothering with these things.

When I am using my computer, I rarely see my wallpaper. The exception is in the morning on the multi-monitor setup before I get my apps up. So what use is a wallpaper? I don't change it at home anymore.

Icons went away for me a long time ago. It was the combination of two things. The first being that I was informed that having stuff on your desktop was actually bad for performance. The second was once I could put shortcuts to often used things on the Taskbar and much later when Windows 7 (I never really used Vista) had the Start Menu show the top 10 most used programs. Now I never go to the desktop except for rare occassions when I need to format a USB key, since that is where I have that program.

And screen savers are a similar thing. The screen saver comes on when you are not using the computer and its probably because you are not near it. You wouldn't be there to see your screen saver since you'd be busy doing something else most of the time. Even the case of Shiva, who others have nicknamed "The Drugs Computer" because of its screen saver ended up just being a distraction you can see from the corner of your eye if you are doing something else in the room.

Of course I would totally flip around on this subject if they include After Dark in Windows 8.1. :thumbup

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have "studied" the behaviour of business users since years :yes: .

Everyone - as always - can be categorized in no more than 5 categories:

  1. the "dumb" - aka "trained monkeys" these are people that will only learn the very basics of the (usually very vertical) program(s) they use, nothing more, nothing less, they will change nothing in the setup the IT guy/gal prepares
  2. the "artistic dumb" - aka "trained monkeys who fancy colours" these are the people that know nothing more than the first category BUT (since Windows 3.x times) like to change each and every icon in the system AND place ALL of them on the desktop, the result is a system that noone can use easily but them (yes, on all systems "my PC" is an icon representing more or less a computer, tendentially first icon on the top left, but on their computers it will be in fourth row, third column, with an icon representing the sun or the Apollo 11 :w00t:. They tend to think that they are "smart" or anyway much smarter than the first category, but remain "within the limits" of the basic settings of the OS GUI.
  3. the "flat user" - aka the "productive kind", these people will leave, like the category #1 above, everything as setup initially, but will add no more than 5 or 6 icons (actually connected with the 5 or 6 programs they use) with a meaningful icon
  4. the "curious jerk" - these people are the "dangerous ones", they are similar to category #2, BUT they will experiment, they will change extensions, move programs and data here and there, install (or attempt to install) any kind of crappy programs, etc. a noticeable part of the time they spend in front of computers is about experimenting (BTW without any actual knowledge of what they are doing), a sub-category of these will not only ruin their own installs/PCs, but they will also change (or induce to change) their coworkers installs and add any kind of "nice" app.
  5. the "knowledgeable chap" these people are into two sub-categories, those that use their knowledge to actually customize (very slightly) their system in a way that easens or make faster their work experience (a super-set of the flat user) and those that use their knowledge to customize and add any kind of visual crap to the interface because it's nice or good looking (a super-set of both the "artistic dumb" and "curious jerks") while still doing "properly" (i.e. without damaging the normal use of the system, only bettering it's visual appearance).

Speaking of monkeys, I made a graphic for that ...

l4LcoQv.jpg

( Image Sources: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 )

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I thought Julie Larson-Green was bad..

http://allthingsd.com/20130708/aiming-for-functional-coherence-mulling-a-single-pl-and-with-advice-from-ford-ceo-microsoft-restructuring-set-for-thursday/

"Windows Phone chief Terry Myerson is expected to take over Windows engineering and platforms."

Yeah, because he's done such a good job... Looks like Windows gets even more metrotarded.

To see what an id*** takes control, read this:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/16/microsoft-terry-myerson-on-iphone-android-windows-phone/

Microsoft's Terry Myerson senses no urgency with iOS, calls Android 'a mess,' says WP8 is most successful in non-subsidized markets

Complete loon.

Just when you think Microsoft can't f*** it up any worse anymore, they prove you wrong. Seriously, I would rather see Sinofsky coming back than the clowns they are putting at the helm of Windows now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that guy for real? :w00t:

Contradicting himself thrice in four statements must be a world record. :unsure:

What happens in the subsidized market -- the market that Apple and Samsung have chosen to focus on -- is that the best innovation happens in the $650 product that's sold for $200. For us, the momentum we're building is with building a phone we can offer for less than $650 [unsubsidized]. Getting to 20 percent share in Mexico or Poland, that's the opportunity."

Fried asked about the scale of the Windows Phone business, to which Myerson offered:

"We're definitely a global business. We're in a challenger position. We think of Windows Phone as an incredibly well-funded startup. We need to be successful somewhere before we're successful everywhere, so choosing those places is important. We need to go from here and differentiate our offerings -- we have Xbox, we have Office (which is how most people do their work) and are really cultivating that. We're bringing that proposition across."

  1. we are after a niche market in selected countries
  2. we are global business
  3. we are in a challenger position - we are a start-up
  4. we have the Xbox and Office and cultivating that

Reality check:

  • a startup has a single product, does not even think of doing global business but it's single and only product is designed for and aimed to a niche market and commercialized only in selected countries and is a challenger, and if that product fails, there is no more start up :no: .
  • a global business company has more products and is not after niche markets in selected countries, but it is after global business ;), it can reach a product placement by using price dumping and overall make leverage on it's other products

A company can be one (or the other) but never both.

BTW I have been to Poland (Warsaw) not that much time ago (a few months) and haven't seen before the city centre shops all the queues of people willing to fork from some US$ 650 for a Windows Phone, if someone from Poland would confirm my impression....

And of course I suspect that also in Mexico there is not that kind of pressure on poor telephone shops clerks....

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~sigh~ Lot of shallow thinking going around. Shallow, because they throw this stuff out without thinking it through. Each point there is senseless IMHO ...

Another fantastic piece of analysis, Charlotte. Thank you. :thumbup

The only part that I wasn't totally clear on was the sentences I've bolded below:

The ironic thing is that the original Judgment against Microsoft, and the order to break it up into two parts would have been the absolute BEST thing for us, and Microsoft itself. :yes: Getting the neutral Windows OS away from the rest of the clowns up there into a separate place where they would answer to everyone would have been ideal. Most importantly it would have removed the irresistible temptation for Microsoft to use the OS as leverage to steer the Sheeple into the Microverse as they are plotting as we speak. Windows would be far more cross platform friendly and so many developer avenues would not have turned into dead-ends. Unfortunately the government spent so much time hammering them over Netscape ( thanks a lot Barksdale ) that they actually drummed up sympathy for Microsoft. I know this because I was one of them ( boy was I wrong! ). It seemed really dumb to complain about a free browser in the OS because other browsers worked fine. And the downside of making them remove it meant opening the door to every other non-essential part of the OS ( Calc, Notepad, etc ) to also be challenged by every Tom, Dick and Harry on the planet. Meanwhile the backroom OEM deals got stepped over chasing Netscape down a rabbit hole. ~sigh~ [...]

Can you elaborate a little on those?

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.