Electronics > Altium Designer

Altium REJECTS takeover bid from Autodesk

<< < (37/42) > >>

nctnico:

--- Quote from: Doctorandus_P on March 23, 2022, 08:28:17 pm ---This Linux bashing is al lot of bollocks.

--- End quote ---
Agreed. Every piece of software has a learning curve. Most people forget the amount of time they put into learning Windows and on top of that expect all operating systems to behave that way.

Try to switch CAD packages for example; suddenly all the 'muscle memory' is useless and the new package is total crap. Until you learn how to work with it... and only then you can have a valid opinion on which is better / worse at specific points.

dunkemhigh:
The thing about Windows is that there wasn't an alternative at the time. Maybe OS/2, but my experience of that was quite poor (and Microsoft deliberately broke its compatibility). Pretty much any GUI would be cool compared to a CLI. Nowadays, if you're switching away from Windows there is always the comparison with the known slick (and despite its faults, Windows is slick) example with, as you say, years or decades of muscle memory invested (although that's not translated to W10/11 so well, I think). Linux, and the Mac, have a much harder job now in converting foreign users than Windows did.

tooki:

--- Quote from: nctnico on March 24, 2022, 08:05:27 am ---
--- Quote from: Doctorandus_P on March 23, 2022, 08:28:17 pm ---This Linux bashing is al lot of bollocks.

--- End quote ---
Agreed. Every piece of software has a learning curve. Most people forget the amount of time they put into learning Windows and on top of that expect all operating systems to behave that way.

--- End quote ---
Nah, the problems with Linux usability on the desktop go WAY beyond unfamiliarity. The open source model simply doesn’t lend itself towards user interface consistency, which is extremely important. This is where the Mac shines, Windows is OK, and Linux sucks.

CAD software is a genre which, regardless of platform, also generally sucks in this regard.


--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on March 24, 2022, 11:19:40 am ---The thing about Windows is that there wasn't an alternative at the time.

--- End quote ---
***coughs in Macintosh***

Just what exactly do you think Windows was copying (poorly)? ;)



--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on March 24, 2022, 11:19:40 am ---Linux, and the Mac, have a much harder job now in converting foreign users than Windows did.

--- End quote ---
Having in the past sold literally hundreds of Macs to people converting from Windows (they were about 90% of our customers), it’s honestly not a huge problem for most people. The best advice I gave ”switchers” (based on what prior successful switchers had told me) was to simply “forget how you’d learned to do it on Windows, and instead just do what would make sense if you’d never used a computer”. The people who struggled were the few who expected everything to work exactly the same as Windows, which of course it doesn’t. (These were folks who had never gained any understanding of what they were doing, but rather just repeated their workflows by rote memory. I’m sure Windows 10/11 are giving them similar issues.)

Another cornerstone of a successful transition, of course, is application familiarity: Word, Excel and PowerPoint on Mac work basically the same as Word, Excel and PowerPoint on Windows. A browser is a browser. (And that already covers 90% of what most people do on computers these days…) But the same applied to users of various commercial software packages like Adobe stuff.

This doesn’t translate to Linux, because the Linux ecosystem doesn’t have that much in the way of commercial software packages, and even fewer of them are cross-platform. So users aren’t only experiencing a new OS interface, but the new-to-them open source applications, too, which may or may not even do the same things as their old one did.


People who don’t truly, thoroughly understand the ramifications of the whole user experience (the usability of the OS, usability of apps, the user interface consistency within and between apps, availability of apps, and the ecosystem more broadly) will never understand why Mac and Windows have been so successful on the desktop, and nothing else has. The typical Linux defenders show in their responses that they still don’t understand these things, which is why Linux’s desktop market share has been basically unchanged forever. (Heck, even most Windows people don’t understand them fully, which is why they never understood why Apple continued to be successful even as so-called “analysts” predicted the company’s demise.)

Did Microsoft do some unsavory things back in the day? Yes. But that really only affected Apple, and even that effect is probably not as big as people think. (I think most of Apple’s woes in the late 80s through the 90s were self-inflicted.) Nobody else was a meaningful competitor. OS/2 is the only platform I think might have stood a chance, had it not been for Microsoft’s monopolistic behaviors.


I mean, if there’s one software company that really gets me angry these days, it’s Adobe… (No, I won’t ever forgive them for buying Macromedia and then just killing off FreeHand, which was so much better than Illustrator in so many ways. But also how they used InDesign to — rightfully — lure away Quark Xpress’s entire customer base with a better product and great customer service, only to turn around once they’d gotten on top and become even more abusive than Quark had been to its customers!!)

dunkemhigh:

--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---
    The thing about Windows is that there wasn't an alternative at the time.

--- End quote ---
***coughs in Macintosh***

Just what exactly do you think Windows was copying (poorly)?
--- End quote ---

OK, an affordable alternative :)

At the time the Mac was a bit nichey. Didn't Microsoft have to bail them out at one point just so Microsoft wouldn't be a monopoly?

tooki:

--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on March 24, 2022, 04:36:26 pm ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---
    The thing about Windows is that there wasn't an alternative at the time.

--- End quote ---
***coughs in Macintosh***

Just what exactly do you think Windows was copying (poorly)?
--- End quote ---

OK, an affordable alternative :)

At the time the Mac was a bit nichey.

--- End quote ---
Yes and no. Mostly yes, but at the time, they had REALLY cornered the publishing, multimedia, photography, music, and TV/film industries. Back then, you never saw a newspaper or magazine laid out on anything but Macs. Practically all professional media production was on the Mac back then. That’s really changed today, where a significant percentage of that is done on Windows.

What’s interesting to me, though, is that back then, when media production was absolutely dominated by Macs, very little of the business outside of media production was done on Macs. So you’d typically see big companies use Windows for everything, except for their art departments using Macs. Nowadays, the art departments might use Windows, but you also see lots of Macs in businesses outside of the art departments, having found their way into general office/business use a lot more. (Thanks, web/intranet apps!!)


--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on March 24, 2022, 04:36:26 pm ---Didn't Microsoft have to bail them out at one point just so Microsoft wouldn't be a monopoly?

--- End quote ---
Yes except actually no. Microsoft’s $150M investment in Apple was purely symbolic, to cement a big deal between the two companies: 1. a patent cross-licensing agreement (to put to bed, once and for all, the IP litigation between them), and 2. Microsoft’s promise to continue to make Mac versions of Office and Internet Explorer for 5 years. Contrary to what people often say, this investment was not needed for Apple’s survival (the company was worth billions at the time and was liquid*), and moreover, it wasn’t a cash investment, but a stock purchase. It didn’t make any tangible difference in Apple’s liquidity, but did serve to stabilize the stock price. Thus, it really cannot be called a bailout.

What’s hilarious is the way the Macworld Expo (Boston, 1997) crowd booed Bill G. when Jobs put him on the screen by satellite to announce this during the Apple keynote!

Appleinsider did a nice retrospective on it, including the video of the above: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/06/august-6-1997----the-day-apple-and-microsoft-made-peace



*At the end of FY97, while the company did post a massive net loss (around $1B), the company had $4.3B in assets, including $1.2B in cash, and less than $1B of long-term debt. Heck, its market cap was just $2.3B, less than its assets! Ultimately, during the roughly 15 years (~1990-2005ish) that pundits kept predicting/announcing Apple’s imminent demise, and then once it became clear even to the dumbest of them that Apple was financially extremely stable, the few more years that they kept predicting/announcing the imminent crash of their stock price (“what goes up must come down, and it’s overpriced now!” 🤣), Apple only posted an annual net loss in two fiscal years: 1996 and 1997.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version