Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Jan 2009 13:46 UTC
Editorial With Windows 7 having made its grand debut, and with KDE4's vision making leaps and bounds forward with every release, we have two major software projects that have decided to implement some fairly drastic interface changes. Such changes are bound to receive some harsh criticisms - but the funny thing is, these criticisms usually come from people you least expect it from.
Thread beginning with comment 345737
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"aversion to change"?
by kawazu on Tue 27th Jan 2009 14:55 UTC
kawazu
Member since:
2005-12-11

Though to some point I have to agree with the very meaning of this article, I still have to object in another way: "Aversion to change"? Maybe. But let's put it another way: If one is pleased and happy with what (s)he got, would there be a considerable reason to change? Put another way: Surely I like what KDE 4.x does from a technical point of view, and yet I feel more productive using my "old-fashioned" XFCE desktop tweaked to virtually the last bolt available to be right the way I want it / need it to be in my everyday work. Why should I eventually change for something new which, again, requires learning curve to be mastered just to be capable of working with a tool rather low-level (the base interface of my operating system), which will require learning curve and work in identifying things worth optimizing (in terms of configuration to say the very least) to make it a pleasant environment for everyday work? If doing this change, what do I really get in return, an eventually more visually appealing user interface left aside? What could eventually motivate me to overcome any "aversion to change" and adopt the "latest and greatest" with open heart and mind?

Reply Score: 1

RE: "aversion to change"?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 27th Jan 2009 16:17 in reply to ""aversion to change"?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If one is pleased and happy with what (s)he got, would there be a considerable reason to change?


The problem is that technically inclined people will only apply the above reasoning to their own situation. As soon as a Windows users says "But I'm happy, why should I change?", he's an idiot, he doesn't understand anything about computers, and he doesn't like change.

I'm sorry, but that's just hypocrisy.

That's my problem with this.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: "aversion to change"?
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 27th Jan 2009 16:49 in reply to "RE: "aversion to change"?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem is that technically inclined people will only apply the above reasoning to their own situation. As soon as a Windows users says "But I'm happy, why should I change?", he's an idiot, he doesn't understand anything about computers, and he doesn't like change.


There's a fairly well-known expression which applies to that statement: "All generalizations are inherently false (including this one)."

"Technically-inclined" is not a synonym for "zealot" or "fundamentalist," not by any stretch of the imagination.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: "aversion to change"?
by kawazu on Tue 27th Jan 2009 18:27 in reply to "RE: "aversion to change"?"
kawazu Member since:
2005-12-11


...
As soon as a Windows users says "But I'm happy, why should I change?", he's an idiot, he doesn't understand anything about computers, and he doesn't like change.
...


I see your point, but I am not arguing against this. Sure, there is fanatism on both sides of the fence, and there are morons "here" as they are "there". I assume that at the very least if someone is into doing serious work using a computer, goin' for another platform is something to be a carefully made, carefully prepared decision, as this person is simply not likely to be able of throwing away one sharp tool for the simple sake of having another tool someone else considers "better" for whichever reason. I have, in an enterprise environment, seen just a lot of trouble arising from moving from "old" to "new" MS Office including the "new user interface", causing serious trouble to many well-trained, "old-fashioned" users who were able to blindly operate their old office applications and, now, all of a sudden, thrown into something which makes dealing (and, after all) working with it just way more difficult for no particular reason.

Same about operating systems: My personal preferences aside, I don't see why anyone should move from Windows to Linux (or vice versa, that is, or from Unix to Windows) with no particular reason. Why fix something that ain't broken? It gets interesting however, in my opinion, the very moment this decision _has_ to be made, i.e. whenever some company is about to buy new computers, facing the situation that suddenly Windows XP is not available so they are left with either choosing Vista or goin' for Linux/OpenSolaris/whatever. And _this_ is the point where I indeed think the "i-am-happy-with-windows-so-why-should-i-change" guy might be wrong, leaving out the fact that, eventually, moving from Windows XP or even 2000 to Vista won't be less painful than moving from said platform to Linux. But that seems another pair of shoes anyhow...

Reply Parent Score: 2