About Windows bundled apps
The news mentioned yesterday about certain previously built-in applications being optional in Windows 7 has sparked some general appraisal of Windows’ bundled applications by Adam Pash at Lifehacker. Pash doesn’t think too highly of the apps included in Windows and compares them unfavorably with the many Apple applications that come with the Mac. Pash writes:
Microsoft has a sad history of bundling lame, half-baked applications into the operating system by default (Outlook Express) and then up-selling you with software that actually functions (proper Outlook).
He then compares with the Mac:
The thing that appeals to people about Apple products is that they “just work.” While the extent to which OS X really does “just work” is certainly debatable, it’s fair to say that much of what’s supports that idea is iLife—the suite of default apps bundled with OS X that handles things like email, photo management, calendars, video editing, and more. Mac users don’t have to go on a quest for a new application every time they want to do something new. Want to make a movie? Fire up iMovie. Burn it to a DVD? iDVD does the job. They don’t have to be the best apps possible, but they do the job, and they’re relatively user-friendly.
Finally, Pash comments:
You could be using Windows every day and still never touch default Windows apps. That’s fine, but is that really the way it should be? Shouldn’t Microsoft at least be trying to create applications that you’d want to use? They don’t have to be complicated. They just have to provide functionality you actually need.
Personally, I wish Microsoft would provide a version of Windows without all the bloated folderol and let users add whatever particular applications suited their individual needs.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.