Comments on: Why It Just Works

By: Inertia and Separation Anxiety Drive Design | Oracle

Inertia and Separation Anxiety Drive Design | Oracle — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:45:11 +0000

[...] software, as can be seen from Microsoft’s experiences with Windows and IE. Thanks to Gary for sending along this fascinating look into the Windows development process that led into what became [...]

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:31:43 +0000

Sure, I enjoy the history of technology. It's always interesting to look back (not very far) and see how decisions and strategies affected the modern landscape.

It's also nutty how recently these things happened.

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:05:01 +0000

Awesome post and very prescient considering the timing.

This leads me to believe in the Good Enough theory even more.

By: John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises)

John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:02:18 +0000

Gary,

Chet already stole my thunder on this, but thanks for sharing the Joel on Software post from 2004. A long, but worthwhile, read, and it's amusing to hear SimCity cited as an example of why Microsoft (well, some in Microsoft) do what they do.

This 2004 description of the philosophies of two apparent camps within Microsoft helped to give me a fresh perspective on this 2009 Inquisitr post. In the July 6 post, Steven Hodson argues that Microsoft should stop trying to make Internet Explorer compatible with previous versions (i.e. a web-based version of the Raymond Chen camp?) and start afresh.

By: John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises)

John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:40:46 +0000

First person, second person...what's the difference between friends?

Oh, and Jake, thanks for setting me straight on how the IBM PC architecture ended up on the computers of other companies. A subsequent Wikipedia read, coupled with an account from an old Compaq employee, explained exactly how the so-called "100% compatible" PCs were created.

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:35:15 +0000

Thanks, fanbois welcome.

It will never happen, but it would be fascinating to see how much code goes into these major O/S (Win, Mac, Linux) and where the bulk of the code is. It can't only be design. Smart people are all over the place.

By: chet

chet — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:01:53 +0000

BTW, by “I,” I meant “You”

Gary,

Thanks for sharing that article. Very interesting read.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:40:32 +0000

Why Windows doesn't work....
It wasn't supporting the hardware, but the software
Check out this article from 2004:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

Developers cheat. The didn't stick to the 'official' APIs for the OS, but tried workarounds and sneaky stuff. And MS bent over backwards not to break the rubbish they wrote. And they still do because when something worked on XP but not in Vista, people blamed Microsoft, not the the app vendor.

By: chet

chet — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:20:50 +0000

I just want to beat John to the punch this time...seeing as how he stole my thunder last post.

I think you just did a great job of articulating the benefits of simplicity. It just works. Bravo. I think that's a great illustration of why their product is (arguably) better. I like them from afar...no real world experience yet.

In software, simpler is usually better. If you are able to spend more time in the design phase, you will (hopefully) produce a better product. I've argued in the past, for 90% or more of the applications, Oracle and APEX will do just fine. You just brought this point home in regards to Apple. Thank you for that.

(sorry to be all fanboi (my new word) on you...but I really feel like I Just pointed out something which should have been pretty clear)