Frustration

[slamjet]

WinXP was a decent OS, Microsoft's best to that point. No shame there. But why would anyone want Vista installed? Windows 7 was the cleaned-up version of Vista, and remains as Microsoft's first really solid GUI OS. Why would anyone want Vista when Win7 is available?

As Dravin said, licensing. I can only put on what was on the laptops before, and only when the activation key works. And for these, it's XP and Vista, Bleh! Besides, these are donated. If the end user wants to, it's aprox $100 for an OEM Win 7 disc.

[Guest]

It's not always the guy/gal in the program's guts to blame, sometimes it's management insisting on a sub-optimal approaches for various reasons.

This may be true. But in my personal philosophy, I don't allow that excuse. Management usually deals with budgets (time is money too). So, sub-optimal approach can be boiled down to cheaper. Cheaper doesn't have to mean buggy. It just means simpler. And simpler can be made solid quality. My philosophy is that it is my job to convince management the best way to spend their money to accomplish specific things without sacrificing quality. Now, quality can be boiled down to - meeting/exceeding users expectations. A missing functionality doesn't impact quality if everybody expects that functionality to be missing.

Make sense?

(You can kinda get a glimpse of why I prefer Apple over Microsoft)