Should We Lead or Follow?

Question

Should We Lead or Follow?

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

SSC Guru

Points: 736270
More actions
March 17, 2010 at 9:36 pm

#139506

Comments posted to this topic are about the item Should We Lead or Follow?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004365 More actions · Answer 1

Heh... feedback... it was "feedback" that was supposedly responsible for that bloody "ribbon" in Office 2007.

I've found the same thing even on some of the MVP sites. I agree that feedback is important and I'm honored to provide some feedback, but MS needs to listen to other people other than just MVP's. Then, MS has to do it right. Look how comparatively useless and difficult SQL Server PIVOT is compared to an Access PIVOT. A whole version (2005) has come and gone and they still haven't improved on that nor made things like the SUM() Windowing Function work correctly even though a huge amount of feedback has been provided on both.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

SQLRNNR SSC Guru Points: 281334 More actions · Answer 2

Jeff Moden (3/17/2010)
Heh... feedback... it was "feedback" that was supposedly responsible for that bloody "ribbon" in Office 2007.
I've found the same thing even on some of the MVP sites. I agree that feedback is important and I'm honored to provide some feedback, but MS needs to listen to other people other than just MVP's. Then, MS has to do it right. Look how comparatively useless and difficult SQL Server PIVOT is compared to an Access PIVOT. A whole version (2005) has come and gone and they still haven't improved on that nor made things like the SUM() Windowing Function work correctly even though a huge amount of feedback has been provided on both.

Agreed on the stupid ribbons

I think there comes a point when all the feedback is just too much noise and then development on the product becomes fluffy and less useful. It needs to be a give and take relationship. Sometimes you lead and sometimes you follow.

Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004365 More actions · Answer 3

Heh... and sometimes you have to PUSH! 😛

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

SQLRNNR SSC Guru Points: 281334 More actions · Answer 4

Jeff Moden (3/17/2010)
Heh... and sometimes you have to PUSH! 😛

That's an understatement.:hehe:

Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events

GSquared SSC Guru Points: 260824 More actions · Answer 5

I would think it would need to be a two-way street. Microsoft needs to listen to MVPs and others on what's needed, but they also need to disseminate what's being done. Both are vital.

- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread

"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

TravisDBA SSCoach Points: 15780 More actions · Answer 6

I tend to agree with Jeff on this one. Feedback is useless if no one cares to listen to it, and from what I have heard from many people in the past Mickeysoft is famous for this. 😎

"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"

Charles Kincaid SSChampion Points: 13593 More actions · Answer 7

Here is a case example:

Customer X has a couple dozen facilities. Product is transferred between facilities routinely. When transferring from A to B they "moved" the inventory from A to B when the load was sent out. Umm, did anybody catch that the load take two to three days to actually get from A to B? No. Now somebody commits B to ship product they don't yet have.

Leadership is not always giving marching orders and setting things in stone. Leadership is helping go where it is needed to go. This is not always what is wanted. There was a car designed by a consumer committee. The Edsel. (I actually liked it, by the way)

ATBCharles Kincaid

blandry SSCarpal Tunnel Points: 4821 More actions · Answer 8

To take such a popular quote, which by the way you credit to "Field of Dreams" but allegedly actually comes from a Roman politician referring to the building of the Colesium - you got off completely on the wrong foot. We are, after all talking about Microsoft. So lets frame the quote in true Microsoft terms...

"If they build it, you will have no other viable choice but to use it, tolerate it, and eventually hate it."

I give MS some credit for listening to users, but generally Microsoft has for years had one key problem (that also plagues other software vendors) - over-complexity, and complete lack of common sense. Office 2007, Vista, Visual Studios gaping lack of any real Admin modules, Bob, InfoPath... The list is actually quite long where the over-intelligent folks at Microsoft have completely lost focus that ease-of-use and ease-of-understanding is what, at the bottom line, makes software great versus good, versus well, crud that we are forced to use.

If you could add up all the time users have wasted trying to decipher MS software (the Ribbon being a great example, with hundreds of other "features" being like land mines to productivity) you would likely find a few hundred lifetimes or more in wasted time.

MS may listen and its good that we try to get the message to them - but the core problem plaguing MS is the same as we just saw on Wall Street. Over-complexity with only a few ever really understanding all of any given app. For the rest of us, its endless reading, studying, and classes just to know how to use stuff that otherwise could be very simple.

If you staff a company with Rocket Scientists and then ask them to build something simple, don't be surprised when you get an "improved" pencil that just happens to have two jet engines, an on-board computer, and require two hours to write a very short note. THAT is Microsoft, and THAT is not "improvement".

There's no such thing as dumb questions, only poorly thought-out answers...

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736270 More actions · Answer 9

Jeff Moden (3/17/2010)
Heh... feedback... it was "feedback" that was supposedly responsible for that bloody "ribbon" in Office 2007.

There are quite a few people that like that ribbon thing. Mostly people that struggled with the regular menus. Now I tend to agree with you that the ribbon gets in my way, but I can see where that works. I'm not sure it was a "suggestion" or feedback as much as it was someone's idea at MS and UI testing showed people figured things out quickly. I think that was because most people use 5.7 things in Word/Excel and having those migrate to the ribbon helped.

I think they should have left the menus and then had a toolbar that was "smart" and learned how the user worked instead.

A whole version (2005) has come and gone and they still haven't improved on that nor made things like the SUM() Windowing Function work correctly even though a huge amount of feedback has been provided on both.

There are some people that use this, and a few very, very vocal people using it. However I haven't seen a lot of call for this widely. I see it from a few people. That might be because 90% of the people don't understand it or don't know where it would work, but a search of Connect doesn't show this as an item that I can find. If there's one, I'd like to get a good argument (not in this thread), or an article that might explain it. If it's worth doing, let's push for SQL 11 to implement this.

Revenant SSC-Forever Points: 42467 More actions · Answer 10

I know from my own direct experience that the SQLS guys do listen. You may note that Microsoft moved from teams of invited beta testers (still for 2005) to CTPs with much wider audience and lots of behind-the-scenes info gathering.

The problem sometimes is that they are up to their necks in a new an so far highly confidential project they are not allowed to talk about. Last time this was the case of Azure.

And so far as the mentioned Bob is concerned, that project got Melinda, the PM, into daily touch with Bill, with the known consequences. So that project was an unqualified success, at least for her.

😉

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736270 More actions · Answer 11

TravisDBA (3/18/2010)
I tend to agree with Jeff on this one. Feedback is useless if no one cares to listen to it, and from what I have heard from many people in the past Mickeysoft is famous for this. 😎

That may have been true in the past, but I can tell you that there have been changes based on feedback item submitted in Connect, or with complaints from MVPs. Not that MVPs are any smarter/better, but there are a number that are consultants and see a large variety of environments.

In two cases, our explicit feedback has changed things. Service Packs 3 and 4 for SQL 2005 would not be released or in planning without our feedback. The intention two years ago was to stop service packs for 2005 at 2 and just do CUs. The tremendous number of votes for both SPs convinced MS, or as Jeff would say "PUSHed" the marketing/development PMs to schedule this.

There was another case, and I'm not sure if I'm NDA bound on this, but there was a change made to a setting in the 2005/2008 product in an SP that changed the way a feature worked because of feedback. I was present at a discussion where some yelling and arguing ensued between MS people and MVPs and we were surprised that about 3-4 months later the change was made.

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736270 More actions · Answer 12

blandry (3/18/2010)
To take such a popular quote, which by the way you credit to "Field of Dreams" but allegedly actually comes from a Roman politician referring to the building of the Colesium - you got off completely on the wrong foot.

Thanks for the correction, though I think most people get my reference. I just was looking for a quote, not necessarily crediting the original author.

I give MS some credit for listening to users, but generally Microsoft has for years had one key problem (that also plagues other software vendors) - over-complexity, and complete lack of common sense.

I'd say it's more bureaucracy. They're so large, and they're not one person. No one decides on SQL Server, it's a lot of little teams that try to balance what they think is interesting/cool/useful with feedback, with what sales/marketing thinks is needed to combat Oracle. As a result we tend to get a compromise, which like some laws, is just a mess.

ChrisMoix-87856 SSCertifiable Points: 7288 More actions · Answer 13

It seems that MS needs the feedback from MVPs, but a summit is not the place to ask for it. Why should the MVPs travel somewhere for a conference just to be asked what they think of things.

I'd be asking for demos, meetings with insiders to learn more about internals, find out future direction, etc. SWAG SWAG SWAG

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736270 More actions · Answer 14

I agree. The Summit is a place to help us learn, debate things, and show us your direction. Let us give feedback the rest of the year.