Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1663470.rf2T6eBx0a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> __/ [ Robert Newson ] on Monday 05 June 2006 09:51 \__
>
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> <sarcasm> I guess there is a factored in with some
>>> expressed TCO numbers, an assumption that people are in
>>> general incredibly stoopid, and thus require considerable
>>> training. </sarcasm>
<SNIP>
>> Recently a large UK retailler moved head office and the
>> staff on the "induction" to their new offices were going
>> on "XP" training.[1] If Windwos is so easy, why did this
>> staff /need/ any training for the new version of Windwos?
<SNIP>
>> The conclusion I come to is that MS software requires
>> training[3], but MS's marketing confuses the buyers that
>> it doesn't require it. And IT depts are going to budget
>> it in regardless of what MS says, but MS higlights that
>> *nix options are going to be different and require
>> "retraining" (which is possibly true, but not to the
>> extend that MS preaches).
>>
>> [3] What else explains all the courses, and 3rd party
>> books, available for using Microsoft Software?
>
> I really appreciate that point which you make. Software
> should be rhetorical, much like Web sites, for example. No
> software should require training if it addresses
> expectations (rather than opposing them) and if built
> sensibly.
>
> As for Office 2007, I believe that fairly radical changes
> were made only to defend 'innovation' argument and urge
> customers to upgrade. You will always struggle to sell an
> upgrade if your new(er) product looks almost identical.
> Perhaps it is merely Office 2003 in a new gift wrapping.
> That's what I suspect, but I have not explored it in depth
> (many of the new features are utterly-useless cruft). So
> better to just upgrade to OpenOffice 2. It even has ODF
> support (ISO standard, yay!), which office still lacks
> (boo!).
I remember when WordPerfect 6.1 came out about a year after
6.0 came out, users in the office were faced with relearning
their revised interface. It took a little adjusting to get
used to, but the differences (like where items were relocated
in the menus) were not necessary. Then it seemed that
upgrading became yearly.
We went from DOS 6 to Windows 3.1, 95, 98 (but resisted NT
4.0) in a period of about 6 years. This took us through WP
5.1, 6.0, 6.0a, 6.1, then MS Office 97. I retained the WP 6.1
for Win 3.1 with Win 95 and 98, because I got a lot more
accomplished with it.
People are more productive when they work with something they
are used to. The upgrade cycles are better served if people
can work from the same software for 3 or 4 years, then
upgrade. It would not be an annoyance then. Any upgrades,
even a minor one can be disruptive to productivity.
(I still remember how WordStar borked the WordStar for
Windows, departing from keystroked established with their
earlier versions.)
--
HPT
|
|
