jgedesing, while we can appreciate flexibility on the product's "how to?", I think a one way to do things right is necessary. MS lacks taking this risk of deciding for users what is best in their platform, or at least assuring a "way to do" while allowing other collateral.
Google does not fall in this category, they actually have imprinted their way of doing things in many applications. The difference is that they were willing to take a very calculated and studied risk. They have massive data to study behavior of use that on the right hands, with right professionals it rendered solid and stable products..
I like to to use Novell as a comparison. I have been both Novell and MS administrator and I can tell you the difference of doing things is astronomical (UI aside). In Novell you either know or not, in MS, yes you have wizards but not fool proof ones (for way too long), thus opening the door to anyone to dare to execute tasks for which they should have training.
Keep Up with TechRepublic