5 ms·

I think in an ideal world, updates would be either optional major updates (UI changes, workflow changes, etc.) and minor updates (bug fixes, tweaks, etc.). The

I think in an ideal world, updates would be either optional major updates (UI changes, workflow changes, etc.) and minor updates (bug fixes, tweaks, etc.). Then a company can maintain those multiple major versions until they phase out support. CD software had this down pretty great. You could actually rely on a program not being pulled out from under you with an update.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> Then a company can maintain those multiple major versions That sounds completely unrealistic and inefficient for everyone involved.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- stan_rogers 6y ago
  No, that sounds inefficient for one of the parties - the provider. The provider isn't using the software to get work done, and doesn't incur training costs, etc. The provider's pet efficiencies cost the users real money (in the "a million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money" sense).
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I can’t imagine any software update so drastic as to require ‘training costs’. Most reasonable people can figure out where a menu item has moved to.
    - gsich 6y ago
      Maybe if you use that program daily.
    - dayjobpork 6y ago
      Have you ever used any complex software, especially aimed at specific skills / occupations? It's like they throw darts at balloons to randomly select which UI elements are being moved each release. I've used Word every day for years and I still struggle to remember where uncommon functions are in the ribbon. Going from an older Photoshop to the most recent, finding the correct icon means I have to stop and figure out what it is now, slowing me down. I flat out cannot figure out the new Photoshop start up interface and immediately reenable the old one. Every person at work who upgraded to Office that changed the Save UI to the online shit absolutely flipped their shit. Software companies are forever forcing unwanted changes on users who use the software all the time, and it absolutely and costs time and money to retrain staff to be able to keep doing the work they were already trained to do. No user or company wants existing functionality changed
    - nordsieck 6y ago
      > I can’t imagine any software update so drastic as to require ‘training costs’. Both Windows and Office were notorious for this. > Most reasonable people can figure out where a menu item has moved to. As it turns out, many people who do low skill computer work do not adapt to change well.
- james-skemp 6y ago
  I'm not sure that's unrealistic. Once upon a time software and services were supported for multiple versions back. Usually two major versions, the current and the last. (Granted, this was as a technical user, using technical tools.) Now everyone wants you to use an auto updating piece of software (such as browsers), or cloud based services. I'm give you that it was inefficient in the old days, but it also allowed users to purchase a piece of software (like Photoshop) and use it, with limited and then no official support, for as long as you'd like. That's harder and harder to do these days.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> Then a company can maintain those multiple major versions That sounds completely unrealistic and inefficient for everyone involved.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stan_rogers 6y ago
No, that sounds inefficient for one of the parties - the provider. The provider isn't using the software to get work done, and doesn't incur training costs, etc. The provider's pet efficiencies cost the users real money (in the "a million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money" sense).
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I can’t imagine any software update so drastic as to require ‘training costs’. Most reasonable people can figure out where a menu item has moved to.
  - gsich 6y ago
    Maybe if you use that program daily.
  - dayjobpork 6y ago
    Have you ever used any complex software, especially aimed at specific skills / occupations? It's like they throw darts at balloons to randomly select which UI elements are being moved each release. I've used Word every day for years and I still struggle to remember where uncommon functions are in the ribbon. Going from an older Photoshop to the most recent, finding the correct icon means I have to stop and figure out what it is now, slowing me down. I flat out cannot figure out the new Photoshop start up interface and immediately reenable the old one. Every person at work who upgraded to Office that changed the Save UI to the online shit absolutely flipped their shit. Software companies are forever forcing unwanted changes on users who use the software all the time, and it absolutely and costs time and money to retrain staff to be able to keep doing the work they were already trained to do. No user or company wants existing functionality changed
  - nordsieck 6y ago
    > I can’t imagine any software update so drastic as to require ‘training costs’. Both Windows and Office were notorious for this. > Most reasonable people can figure out where a menu item has moved to. As it turns out, many people who do low skill computer work do not adapt to change well.
james-skemp 6y ago
I'm not sure that's unrealistic. Once upon a time software and services were supported for multiple versions back. Usually two major versions, the current and the last. (Granted, this was as a technical user, using technical tools.) Now everyone wants you to use an auto updating piece of software (such as browsers), or cloud based services. I'm give you that it was inefficient in the old days, but it also allowed users to purchase a piece of software (like Photoshop) and use it, with limited and then no official support, for as long as you'd like. That's harder and harder to do these days.