Re: RISC OS Updater? (Was: Re: Tinct for FF beta2)
- From: Nick Roberts <tigger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:53:04 +0100
In message <1120634399.c0b1cb5d4aa77641a707f7f64b74edd2@teranews>
Ray Dawson <Ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <c73aec854d.tigger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Nick Roberts <tigger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Having the OS do things on the users' behalf so they don't have to
> > worry their fluffy little heads about it is the MS approach, and it
> > leads to the abomination known as WinXP, which lies to the user as
> > a matter of course. I'd rather the OS did what I told it to, rather
> > than deciding that it knows what I want better than I do.
>
> That's not quite fair Nick.
We're talking about Microsoft here. I'll start playing fair when they
do.
And in any case, what's unfair about it?
XP /does/ lie to the user as a matter of course - folders aren't where
they appear to be in the disc tree, folders contain files that aren't
visible, and don't contain files that are visible.
XP /does/ regularly decide to do things that I've explicitly told it
not to, or decides not to do things that I've explicitly told it I want
it to do.
OK, XP is trying to be helpful, and to a new user or someone who isn't
interested in what's going on under the lid (probably 98% of the
intended audience) that's fine. However, to the other 2% it can get
ridiculously irritating and patronising. Unfortunately, although you
can tell XP not to look like a Fisher-Price toy, you can't tell it not
to act like one.
Even more unfortunately :- XP has enough advantages over Win2K that I
can't quite decide which one to stick with, despite the fact that Win2K
is more robust, mostly does what it's told, and doesn't patronise me.
> Windows XP gives you several options re upgrading. You can choose to
> let XP download and install, download only, or do nothing and let you
> search for upgrades. I choose the middle option which gives me a
> prompt when the download has happened and asks me if I want to
> install it.
Yep, that's what I have it set to.
> I can either reject it or defer it to a more convenient time.
Agreed.
However, in the specific case in point it kept reminding me (by
sticking up a dialog box on front of the document I was working on)
that there was an upgrade available. It did this, roughly speaking,
two or three times an hour for an entire evening.
In my book "a more convenient time" should mean "more convenient to the
user", not "more convenient to the OS".
--
Nick Roberts
tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
.
- References:
- Tinct for FF beta2
- From: Elaine Jones
- Re: Tinct for FF beta2
- From: Richard Wilson
- Re: RISC OS Updater? (Was: Re: Tinct for FF beta2)
- From: Nick Roberts
- Re: RISC OS Updater? (Was: Re: Tinct for FF beta2)
- From: Ray Dawson
- Tinct for FF beta2
- Prev by Date: Re: Playing Gifs on an Iyonix
- Next by Date: Re: RISC OS Updater? (Was: Re: Tinct for FF beta2)
- Previous by thread: Re: RISC OS Updater? (Was: Re: Tinct for FF beta2)
- Next by thread: Re: RISC OS Updater? (Was: Re: Tinct for FF beta2)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
