The problem here lies in the fact that there are two different tools: ones made by the manufacturer, and ones to which the manufacturer has a license to distribute. Now most of the manufacturers get users to access their tools through a singular interface, or at least a repetitive designed interface, rather than bundling 7 different tools at once. Getting the right balance of usability, suitability of tools and design can be a tough one, especially when it used to be so bad. On one side it is a little baffling as it is such a minor thing, but on the other it only takes a bad experience to be put off. In this case we’re not fighting complete UI rearrangement, but a couple of tools that might improve usage / update software as required. Similar to the smartphone space, there’s a general element of malaise that comes with buying hardware from a manufacturer but also then using software from the same company. Off the top of my head, the three most common that I have heard come down to usability (or lack thereof), or that it’s useless, or they don’t want to use it. But the last question we could get some responses to. Some of these numbers could be obtained by the manufacturer automatically if the user was connected to the internet (but they do not get this info, no need to worry). To those that do not use the software, what stops you?
What percentage of users ever update the software? How many users overclock? Using the BIOS, Software or other? I could easily flip them around and point them in the direction of the bundled software that comes with motherboards: At the beginning of the previous section, I asked some perhaps unanswerable questions relating to BIOS usage.
0 kommentar(er)
