The damn problem with Windows' interface isn't the fact that the UI for Calc wasn't updated for years. It's just another example of the sloppiness that goes into Windows fit and finish.

I don't really care too much about cool looking interfaces, but it is nice to know that everything works the same way and looks like it belongs together. When half of the dialog boxes still present a Windows 3.1 view of your computer, and the other half present a Windows 95 view of the world. When half of the Windows look one way and the other half the other way. When the whole OS looks like it was tossed together from part in the bargain bin, it affects the user's experience of the OS.

Much of the Macintosh Finder code is pre-Mac OS X! Yet, Apple makes sure it looks and acts the same as the rest of the OS. They even have added improvements to it to make it a bit more useful. Only in the next OS release will the Finder be updated with all new OS X code.

If you ever look in the auto magazines, the biggest complaint against GM isn't the dependability of their cars, or their technological backwardness, it's their dashboard. The cheap plastic look, the poor fit and finish, the poor arrangement of gauges, and the fact that the dashboard still the same as the dash that was in the disco era models color consumer's perception of the car.

Now, it isn't that Toyota uses exotic woods in their dashboards, and I doubt that Toyota spends a lot more than GM in design and execution of their dash, but the better quality of Toyota dashboards gives the perception that Toyota simply cares more about their cars' quality than GM does. After all, when you buy a car, you spend more time looking at the dash than the outside.

The funny thing is that Windows spends a heck of a lot more than Apple does in usability labs, has almost 100 times more programming resources, and yet for some strange reason, Apple still does a better job with fit and finish. Maybe this hasn't been Microsoft's high point. Maybe Microsoft gets so into various trends like Areo without thinking about the big picture.

I have an application on my iPod Touch called Air Sharing. It allows you to upload and download documents to your iPod Touch or iPhone, and uses WebDAV.

There are directions on Linux, Mac, and Windows. The directions for Mac is two step (Go to the Sharing menu, and type in the URL displayed in Air Sharing). Linux is similarly short although separate directions are given for Gnome and KDE.

Windows is another story, It's a ten step series of instructions from opening the Start Menu to warning you that Vista might ask you for your password and name multiple times. Oh, yes I said Vista. There are separate directions for Windows XP starting with Patching Windows XP.

It isn't about whether user's notice or don't notice changes, its the idea that fit and finish colors a user's perception about quality. How long does it take to put a more colorful Windows Vista look to the Calculator? It probably is a simpler job than rewriting the whole guts, so why not simply slap on a new look while you're at it?

Damn, I don't give a hoot who steals what from who, but Microsoft should at least steal one thing from Apple's playbook: UI determines how a user interacts with the application, and it isn't about flash as much as consistency. In fact, Apple toned down the Aqua UI because it was too colorful and flashy. But, when Apple did tone down the UI to make it less splashy and more friendly, they did it across the board.

I have a lot of complaints about Windows, but underneath it is a damn solid OS. However, the UI is sloppy and poorly thought out.