"David Nadlinger" <s...@klickverbot.at> wrote in message news:kafgmioabokjwkfwm...@forum.dlang.org... > On Friday, 25 May 2012 at 14:42:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> Just because some people like it doesn't mean it was a sensible move to >> force it on *everyone*. > > Just because a few people don't »like it« doesn't mean it wasn't a good > move as everyone else now benefits from it. >
Flipping what I said around doesn't work because I *never* said they shouldn't have added it *at all*. I'm only saying they shouldn't have removed the old. >> All they have to do is just not remove the old way, leave it in as an >> option. It's not as hard as some make it out to be. Problem solved, >> everyone's pleased. > > Except for the users who'd actually dare to open the ginormous > configuration dialogs, or the poor developers who'd have to maintain that > mess. Just adding stuff to your product without ever removing something > doesn't work. > I think you're severely exaggerating that matter. >> And it's downright false to categorize this as a mere matter of "not >> pleasing everybody". They're "not pleasing" nearly *half* of their >> userbase. > > Come on, you just made that figure up. I bet most of the big UI changes go > through extensive usability testing. And no, the relative market share of > Windows XP compared to Windows 7 is _not_ an argument - it isn't like the > only difference between the two OSes was the task bar. > Oh please, I think it's pretty clear I was referring here to Win7's overall theme of abandoning "revert this" options rather than actually claiming something as crazy as "the new taskbar *alone* is the reason for the XP/Win7 rift". And you're right, even that still can't count for 100% of the people who are sticking with XP. But I think there's plently reason to believe these sorts of things account for a chunk of the XP userbase that's more-than-sufficiently-large to not be dismissed as mere "can't please everybody" as Steven put it.