Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 31st Aug 2011 19:42 UTC
Windows Over the past few days, Microsoft has been talking about improvements made to Windows 8 on its 'Building Windows 8' blog at MSDN. Strangely enough, the improvements mentioned were either dealing with the classic desktop, or were demonstrated using the classic desktop - and not the fancy Metro user interface which is supposed to be Windows 8's big new thing. Today's post finally gives a little more detail about how the classic and Metro UI work together, but questions still remain.
Permalink for comment 487900
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Gates rant
by justSomeGuy on Thu 1st Sep 2011 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Member since:

Wow, that's a pretty hypocritical email. About the only complaint that might be a result of lazy/underperforming employees is that the website was slow. Everything else is down to the fundamental nature of windows.

It's basically complaining that windows doesn't have a dependency tracking package manager.

Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up.

What's wrong with file system? Does he mean the explorer file manager? It didn't become too bad until vista I thought. But in 2003, he says unusable? Surely he isn't talking about the actual fs, because what casual users ever mess with file permissions, etc?

And complaining in 2003 that the registry isn't usable? Wikipedia tells me that the registry originated in 1992, so Bill is about 11 years too late here. The registry was always doomed to failure.

And last, about the add/remove programs thing, he actually has a point here. I have no idea how they managed to so royally screw this up between 2000 and xp. Maybe I have rose-colored glasses, but I don't remember things being that bad in 2000. But again, this is the result of not having something like aptitude.

And why is all this hypocritical? Because he's complaining about the things which are prime ways that MS uses to make money. Why should they make something like aptitude? They're not in the business of making it easier for people to get software on their computer with just a few clicks, and a nice roll-backable interface. Third parties have to be able to send out installers with exes that have to be run as root. They need to run as root to install copy protection. Bill wants to change this to make it harder for third parties to install their copy protection? Third party app lockin is a major reason many people need windows, and thus are sending money to redmond at all.

And where does a portion of this copy protection metadata get stored? In the registry of course. And MS allowed whatever exe to write wherever in the registry the user has permission, not in a dedicated registry directory for that app. This is, of course, partly to facilitate copy protection (the other part being complete stupidity wrt security), and what makes migrating installs of windows apps (and windows os installs) such a royal pain.

So did Bill send this out expecting a bunch of grunts to wave a magic wand?

"Let me get this straight sir, you want me to take on the responsibility of fundamentally changing some of the software paradigms which are necessary to third party developers, and therefore, our own business? After they've festered for all these years, getting worse and worse, making money for you all the while? No sir, I will not be the one to take the heat for that, and .... you're dumb."

But on the slow website and bad form validation, he probably had a good point. I only wonder if he was just trying to "discipline the troops", all the while knowing full well the truth? Or if maybe he seriously has no idea how the software actually works? Or maybe just in a bad mood, and not very good at giving orders? (Hint: don't give orders which are destructive to essential core of the company. Some naive employees might take you seriously.)

Reply Parent Score: 1