4 ms·
I think it's more to avoid complaints and compliance issues than anything. If they refactored everything in a single update, which I believe they are very capa
by DoctorDabadedoo 5y ago
I think it's more to avoid complaints and compliance issues than anything.
If they refactored everything in a single update, which I believe they are very capable of doing, I can't imagine how much shit they would get from users and businesses, look how much fuss was generated over the start menu.
By doing the snail pace transitions they can rebuff anything with a "you had years to get used to it / it's been there for ages and we didn't hear anything about this". I just don't have a clue of why they decided control panel needed to go, settings is absolutely subpar.
- whalesalad 5y agoThe irony is they get hate and complaints no matter what they do - so I believe they are optimizing the wrong metric. It's bureaucracy at work: make fuss, busy work, spend lots of money, spin wheels, start big projects then abandon them etc... Or just make good software. Do it right the first time. Accept responsibility when things go south. If your mission is righteous the rest will fall into place.
- philistine 5y agoI don't buy that one bit. They could update the UI in one go, but that's not what they decided to do. When you look at what has been brought over to the new whitespace-everywhere settings, they have decided that what needs modernisation isn't only the UI, but also the preferences themselves. That means it's really hard to change, and not everything can be changed. Whenever something is brought to that forsaken app, the old functionality is simplified and changed. Sometimes everything makes it through to the new app, sometimes breadcrumbs are left in the back of the couch, meaning you can click on stuff and end up in XP land. With this current strategy, I do not believe Windows will ever have one single UI for its settings like macOS.