Software is becoming a special beast. It is ever changing its face.
Just look at the applications that are "cloud" driven. This is more of accepting the reality that application development has to follow the changes of the landscape (operating system, etc.) and that feature-wise many of these software are more than complete.
Consider Office. You have styles, bibliography building, rudimentary grammar correction, layout, indexing, cross-referencing and whatnot. Same features available in LaTeX if you can stomach the scripting. I would argue that since 2000 the software has been sufficiently feature-complete for my needs and have been relearning to find the same features in reorganized menus since.
Windows is endemic of the problem. Click advanced properties on a file and you get something reminiscent of Windows 2000.
Arguably, OS X has had no intention of preserving the old. Yes, there is a new way to launch applications. There is an updated look. Updated usability. A moving target for every piece of software.
If utensils were made by software companies, then each two years we would have a new way to eat. A new easier way to hold them. A new easier set of foods. Something much more fashionable. All the time.
I have no issue with progress, but do we have to slow down the machine. Have fewer software developers. More stability.
May be we don't need to change the user interface of our digital utensils every year. Maybe once a decade. Or less.
Yet again, new sells. And in software that can be expensive. Is it worth the cost?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment