This is another example of a lot of software that asks question on separate dialogs, each after some processing, so that you end up having to wait around while each part is complete.
For example, I could accept the conditions as a checkbox on the first dialog, not have to wait until the third (after some checks have been done) as it does not depend upon whether the software can actually update. It is only a consent.
Install designers, please think that a user does not want to have to hang around unnecessarily and so try to get as much asked up front as possible (without clutter).
Which brings me to the other beef I have. Dialog texts used to be short enough and with direct selection of options by buttons. Now the prompts are very wordy, so that instead of being able to snapshot and immediately understand the question (because it was just a few succinct words), I now have to READ multiple sentences (which is so much slower), check an option, then click the OK button. If the sentences are too long, they are not as easily remembered as something that has been seen before, so require re-reading again, and again, ad nauseum. This is severely disruptive to workflow.
It am a technical writer, but I believe there are times when grammatically-abbreviated language is much better than wordy prompts. Users need to be educated about the consequences of choices, but NOT if it gets in the way of every user, every time, even those who are making the same choice for the umpteenth time!
Pre-beta Vista SP2
by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes | October 24, 2008 4:50am PDT | Image 1 of 10
Previous | Next
Installing pre-beta Vista SP2
Just In
Actually, it appears that the installer does very little processing before it asks you to reboot and prompts you for all options before you reboot. Since the installer actually runs during the reboot cycle, it is likely necessary to analyze the system for space requirements and other basic information so that it CAN let you walk away while the computer installs and reboots on its own.
Your rant was far longer (and less useful) than any of the prompts for the service pack - and you expected people to read it...you're disrupting my workflow. Stop it!
Your rant was far longer (and less useful) than any of the prompts for the service pack - and you expected people to read it...you're disrupting my workflow. Stop it!
Why do they feel it necessary to prompt the user to
accept another license agreement for an update to
existing software? If they pirated the OS, they won't
mind pirating an update.
When I update some of the XP computers at work, I have
to accept three or four agreements which do not all
come up at the same time. (Most of them do come at the
beginning, but IE7 at least does not.) At least they
dropped the extra dialog for WMP11.
The user has already approved the license for the OS,
either at installation or on setting up the new
hardware. Leave it at that - no more agreements, and
no more dialogs than necessary. That includes no
dialog for service packs when installed through
Microsoft Update.
(And why does it take longer to "verify" a download
than the download itself took? That would cut half the
time off installing the updates.)
accept another license agreement for an update to
existing software? If they pirated the OS, they won't
mind pirating an update.
When I update some of the XP computers at work, I have
to accept three or four agreements which do not all
come up at the same time. (Most of them do come at the
beginning, but IE7 at least does not.) At least they
dropped the extra dialog for WMP11.
The user has already approved the license for the OS,
either at installation or on setting up the new
hardware. Leave it at that - no more agreements, and
no more dialogs than necessary. That includes no
dialog for service packs when installed through
Microsoft Update.
(And why does it take longer to "verify" a download
than the download itself took? That would cut half the
time off installing the updates.)
What does the service pack do? Is it bug fixes, just a hot fix roll-up, or is there any new functionality added?
So Vista was incomplete(not ready for the street) at release and now they just play catch up. If I did this at my job I would have been given the sack long ago. It's like selling a computer without a keyboard or a mouse. Maybe next Windows version they could try to get it close to completion before release. Just an idea. I personally wouldn't mind waiting if I knew this was going to be complete. Maybe BG thinks business can't wait. Just a little rant.-troylawson
troylawson,
Name any software that was completely ready for the street and never needed updates? Microsoft, Apple, Linux, applications and even closed gaming systems all need updates because its next to impossible to secure your software against every type of issue that could occur on every different system on the planet! Companies that dont have service packs and updates have 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 versions of their products that you pay extra for every year. Every piece of software is going to be a work in progress.
Name any software that was completely ready for the street and never needed updates? Microsoft, Apple, Linux, applications and even closed gaming systems all need updates because its next to impossible to secure your software against every type of issue that could occur on every different system on the planet! Companies that dont have service packs and updates have 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 versions of their products that you pay extra for every year. Every piece of software is going to be a work in progress.
Have you ever tried to keep Nero UTD, for chrissakes? Bug fix after bug fix. And, you have to download the whole huge damn thing every time.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
