Slashdot Mirror
IBM To Announce Web-Based Desktop Apps
mgoulding writes "IBM is expected to announce a software bundle targeted to business users that will challenge the Microsoft Office package. Unlike Office, the email, word-processing, spreadsheet, and database products will be accessible to Linux, Unix, and heldheld users through a web server. NewsFeed posts the story from CNET." It's certainly something that's been tried before - witness sites like MyWebOS (no longer existing).
I mean, really WOW.
:)
If they can pull it off succesfully, then it could be a giant blow to the MS empire.
Could be cool
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Do they plan to support Salesforce.com who only propose such apps ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
What's the pricing for this setup? I know the article mentions a $2/user/month charge, but it also requires IBM Websphere (which is what IBM really wants to sell with this setup). Which version does it require? Websphere has quite a price range.
Also, the really big question is: What is its compatibility with MS Office?
Casual Games/Downloads
Although many of us here may see the immediate benefits of this over MS Office, has anyone ever been able to sway non-techie management away from Office?
If I remember correctly, back when Microsoft started trying to think of something to tie to their new .NET naming scheme they had the idea that the version of Office beyond Office XP was going to be completely web based, where you would basically subscribe to it and log on via a webpage. Of course, seeing how the version beyond Office XP was Office 2003, they obviously changed their minds.
So does it use XUL or something similar? This could be very interesting indeed.
----
What I care about is how fast will this run? Obviously it doesn't have to be lightspeed, but if dialup users can get it, then Microsoft is in real trouble! Of course, it would totally suck if this required IE, and I couldn't be happier that it wasn't built that way.
stuff |
I wouldn't use web-based applications for the same reason I don't use webmail. It's like sitting at a dumb terminal... I feel very powerless.
Web based applications *suck*. I do not want to refresh the page everytime I change an option, I do not want to use some propriatary scripting language to run a word processor. The web was *not* designed for applications and applications will *not* run well on the web.
wtf is a heldheld user?
It claims that office only works on Windows and Mac intosh. It also runs on Linux and Freinds. You just need to Cross over. I know many people who have switched to Linux purley because they can run office on it.
I guess the submitter doesn't remember Lotus eSuite.
Intelligent Life on Earth
As the article said, it's been tried before. IBM had a toolkit out for doing just this a couple years ago. The toolkit/sdk was pretty nice too...for the life of me I can't remember the name....
However, it didn't fly then, why would it fly now?
As someone who influences purchasing decisions for my company, I must first insist that the product be completely buzzword compliant.
For example, unless it uses JAVA (which my staff assures me is the next big thing), then I'm not interested. Also, I insist that the files are XML, PDF, or maybe even SATA or RAMBUS so that they can leverage my various cross-functional team building objectives.
Now, I see that this is going to be on the 'web'. I once clicked a link and found an unpleasant photo of a gentleman with a distressing condition that exposed his bottom in a most unflattering fashion. If I'm going to 'synergize' and align behind this eSolution, I certainly hope such a thing won't happen again.
Finally, I want the interface to be 'webbish', but not TOO webbish.
Clippy: "It seems you are trying to install non-MS Office compliant software...I don't think you should do that...Hey, what are you doing? No, stop! Oh GOD, I'M MELTING...NOOOOOO!!"
witness sites like MyWebOS (no longer existing)
Well doesn't that make it kind of hard to witness it?
The BusinessWeek take on the announcement. They make a point that IBM's timing of this release is in some part due to the the delay in the "Longhorn."
Ok, I can see this is good, because it means that OS will finally, hopefully, become completely irrelevant (I'm being an optimist here).
But how are IBM going to persuade the ravening hordes of MS Office users that their web-based apps will fail to suck?
Hotmail et al have had cross platform web-based email apps for years, and do they fail to suck? No, because while you can get at your email from where-ever you are, on whichever system, they are still nasty buggy and slow, and lack the features of even the worst (OE) traditional email apps.
How will IBMs web-based Word fail to suck? to win users from Word and OOo Writer etc it not only has to be as good as them, but it has to be better than web, and NOT rely on the web-based gimmick and the "OOh, shiny!" factor (which only lasts for a fortnight aat most anyway) to win over and reatin users.
First, we need a better HTTP-friendly GUI protocol. HTML+DOM+JavaScript is awkward for business applications and forms. Those were generally designed for "e-brochures", and not business forms. XML candidates include XUL, XWT, SCGUI (my pet protocol), and others.
Table-ized A.I.
When I worked there, I poked around and saw something (I forgot the code name) which was Word and Excel in a web browser done with DHTML and script and no activeX, similar to Outlook Web Access. They cancelled it a couple of years ago, but they can bring it back out.
You didn't even have to read the article for this, just the commentary at the top:
Unlike Office, the email, word-processing, spreadsheet, and database products will be accessible to Linux, Unix, and heldheld users through a web server.
So, my assumption would be, no, you don't need IE.
This seems like they're just using a web browser the same way X programs use a remote display. Remember in the old days when everyone had a local machine that was relatively weak, and ran all their *real* applications (you know, besides, xclock) through the lan, on a computer hidden in a server closet somewhere? This sounds very similar, except they'll be using the web as an interface, instead of X-windows.
This might look like IBM is trying to get back some sales from Dell -- the machine sitting on a user's desk can be anything, but the server in the back room will be an IBM, worth tens of thousands of dollars.
Or will the web interface simply download a java application to the person's local machine?
-S
I remember reading some announcement about how Lotus (owned at the time by IBM) was going to put out a web-based "utility" metered Java version of their office suite. This was back in about 1998. I don't recall anything after that. One has to wonder where this new announcement leaves Smartsuite, since it too is competing directly against MS Office (and if they haven't changed Word Pro too much in the last seven years, they have a pretty good go at it, too - Word Pro 97 is still my favorite word processor).
In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.
There is one word omitted from the end your post: "yet"
So it has to be written Java and not JAVA :)
No offense "dude".
I've played around with Java Web Start and it seemed like a good idea, in theory at least.
The idea is when you're running the Java plugin in your browser, you can 'launch' full applications right from the site. It can be either in a single JAR file, or split amongst many (JWS is supposed to download the pieces as they are needed).
Anyway, it is pretty neat and it's come a long way. With some improvements it might be viable to launch full-blown apps such as Office and whatnot (assuming you can get them running well enough in Swing or whatever), although the downloader still needs work to more intelligently decide which pieces to get.
I've written a few JWS apps already and it seemed pretty good, but they really do have some bugs to work out before it's ready for prime time.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
I think that it might actually be something Java-based. The article says:
The web interface will be limited to things like initial setup (like java web start), browsing on-line help, group collaboration etc.
To err is human, but to forgive is beyond the scope of the Operating System...
Why don't they take OpenOffice.org, make it work with IBM file formats (lotus, EBDIC, AIXrc), and call it IBM Office.
They could even make a version for OS/2!
What difference does it make how cheap it is?
What difference does it make how fast it is?
What difference does it make how many features it implements?
What difference does it make how cool the interface is?
This is the SUBSCRIPTION MODEL! This depends on the web being up all the time. (which it mostly, but not always is) This brings in a progressive billing relationship. Who in their right mind wants to pay every month for ANY commoditized application? Existing WordProcessors are already so feature rich I can't imagine wanting ever to buy a new one. Same goes for Spreadsheets, Presentation Makers, even desktop databases.
Let's get real here. A subscription model is fundamentally evil and pointless whether it's being flogged by Microsoft, IBM or even by Linus.
Have we decided that IBM is our friend and therefore suddenly the subscription model is a good idea? (besides the price is so much lower than what Microsoft would charge) Let's remember where we came from and that one plus one is still equal to two.
the defeat of Microsoft won't necessarily make everything better...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
WebSphere Portal 5 bundled in some web based word/excel replacements. I think the idea was "use our portal, and use us to view (and edit) business content. You don't need office!" The reality was less than inspiring. I'd put it on par with the large number of RTF/HTML editors out there - clunky. Not sure why they did not put their weight behind OpenOffice, because it is head and shoulders above what they included with the Portal.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Dan Bricklin criticized this concept some years ago. He presented his criticism in the form of an hysterically funny demo program created with his demo program tool. You can find it at
http://www.bricklin.com/chiapaint.htm
Of course, that was the dialup days... and of course we're all on high-speed connections now, right? And they never go down? And they have zero latency? And there are never any version skew issues, because Web-based standards are so superbly engineered with respect to forward compatibility, and vendors, regardless of their business strategy, fully understand that it is in their best interests to be punctilious about following them?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The application is accessed through the web, not necessarily written as web pages. Being on WebSphere and available offline I can almost guarantee it's a Java application. It's copied to the client through the browser and then runs as a client application that can communicate with the WebSphere server. They definitely are not trying to sell an HTML office application here.
Developers: We can use your help.
I hate it when they try to make personal computing into a SERVICE rather than a PRODUCT. Internet access is a service, but word processing is not. I, for one, would like to keep it that way.
While this does offer a more universal way of running programs, isn't it also a more proprietary and inconvenient way? It's hard enough writing papers for school when Bellsouth accidentally cuts my intenet access, but at least I can still get into my word processor to type a bunch of BS to hand in.
Esoteric reference.
TIBET(tm) (a Javascript library that's up there with CPAN in terms of comprehensiveness) has the muscle to do this sort of thing: Client-side expansion of custom tags, webservices, local file access, fully reflective.... I wonder why they didn't use it. Or did they?
Seastead this.
Hopefully this will allow those of us who are still beleaguered with SmartSuite docs to work with them. SmartSuite runs like sh*t in Wine... An Apple version is coming out too, as per the article from the NYT whis morning (will be nice to be able to open these accursed SS files on my Slack box *and* my PowerBook...):
i bm .html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/technology/10
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
They already have shipped similar functionality in WebSphere Portal v5. I wonder if they will use the same codebase in this rumored product.
Their sales pitch is that 80% of MS Word users use 20% of the functionality. If they can undercut the Word license per user they can get in the corporate door. (lots of users = lots of license savings) even when requiring a WebSphere license it would still be cheaper.
What if your network goes down for any reason. This could really harm productivity. I know when situations like this occur in my workplace we are still able to do what we must on our local machines.
Performance on dial-up is pretty much going to depend on what client they use (cacheing of javabeans?) , but on LAN this should not be that much of a problem, no? C'mon, 5 years ago you would have needed C++ to deliver adequate speed, but programs like Jedit are there to show you can make a decent wordprocessor in Java on today's architecture. Remember, "Web-based" can also mean you download all kinds of shit first time you use it...
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
It also sounds like SashXB, a sort of Javascript applet thing some IBM summer hires wrote a while back. It was a little manager app that would download current versions of various javascript GUI apps on demand.
There needs to be a cost benefit analysis of this. One that includes product price, maintenance costs, and training costs. Only if this shows to be benefitial will they switch. Otherwise it really is a waste (to the business side of the house).
Evolution or ID?
Perhaps it uses the Suns Java Web Start as the model. If you ever used this it caches the java app locally to your machine and downloads once per update. This would be kinda cool as updates to the application would come from a central server.
unlike pure Web applications...mobile users...can connect, quickly access applications and disconnect to do work offline
;)
So this is not a purely web based application. This is an interesting application. It must utilize something more than HTML because it can obviously persist a session over long periods of time. it also means this is more than a thin client. Would something like this be web service based? interested to hear the actual press release from IBM. Either way, this is a good thing as having another office suite with real corporate backing , not the fake kind, is a good thing.
I only say sun is the fake kind because they are
0wNzEd by microsoft now.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
They called it the Java Office
They ran into JVM limitations and scrapped it!
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Well, keep using Word 6.0 then. I hear it works real well on modern systems, and besides, it would be far below Microsoft to change the format every 2 years, right?
Besides, a subscription model for software is the only one that makes sense, especially for businesses (that have to upgrade every year or so anyway).
For instance, check out BackBase, a company which provides almost the same functionality. I can't really give a good outline of their products, besides that they are supposedly coming over to give a presentation any time soon at our company. It sounds good tho...
To quote some of their website: "Backbase offers products and implementation services that allow our clients to develop rich user interfaces that move beyond the limitations of traditional HTML web interfaces. Our technology is based on open industry standards (W3C) and offers out-of-the-box integrations with leading IT-platforms and applications."
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
Related article is here at Businessweek. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may 2004/tc20040510_2149_tc024.htm I think IBM has taken several lessons to heart from its prior go-around with Microsoft. For instance, the ability of this rendition to run on Windows, as well as most other OS's out there provides a huge amount of flexibility to IT managers. W2000 is looking dated, Longhorn not coming out until late '06 or '07...this could make it an interesting race.
"Work is the curse of the drinking class" Oscar Wilde
First off, this makes a TON of sense if executed properly; it could yield a centrally-controlled system that is client (and OS)-independent and lightweight on the client side.
The key is to overcome the previous issues with this type of arrangement: It should also run off-line, and act like a local GUI app, e.g., not refresh the screen with each formatting change.
I suspect that this is doable using Java Applets running the sucks-way-less-than-Swing SWT. Sun should definitely be VERY AFRAID.
Dear IBM Lotus Workplace Member,
During our regular verification of accounts we couldn't verify your current information. Either your information has changed or it is incomplete. If the accoutn is not updated to current information within 5 days, your access to word processing and spreadsheet on IBM Lotus Workplace will be restricted.
Go to the link below to update your information:
http://signin.workplace.ibm.com/foo-cgi/bar?id=123 45
Please do not reply to this email as you will not receive a response.
Thank you for using IBM Lotus Workplace!
http://www.ibm.com
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
This is assuming that every person has 100% web access, which just isn't true. I have several machines that don't have web access in my business for security and productivity reasons. Even if every machine did have web access, I'd still have to have 100% uptime, which is rare with ANY client net connection. If the Net connection goes down, you're stuck, whereas now, if you need to work on documents, and the Net goes down, you can still work. Call me nuts, but this is a bit too bleeding edge to be practical.
Change it back then. Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles.
Casual Games/Downloads
Someone mentioned what would you do if the network go down. Heres a way around: Cache the @(^% thing on the hard drive. That way if the network goes down you've got the modules on your hard drive.
Besides, if the network goes down they won't be able to access the network printer or the network drive anyways to print their PowerPoint presentation.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Weird... now it says: "WTF? Asshole Wikipedia fascists! For those who didn't see it, the original entry was "frosty?" and the revision was "frosty piss?""
BTW: Peoplesoft and Siebel's enthusiastic support for IBM's plans as reported in the article is not surprising. Both companies have partnership deals with IBM. source = google for IMB deal companyX.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Many business professionals that work out in the field do not always have an internet connection. Certainly requiring that you have one at all times in order to get any work done will not stand. This aggression will not stand man!
Nevertheless they are coming, and they do work. I've been trying them for the past two weeks. HTTP+JS+DOM do work, and properly implimented work well.
To quote:
> businesses (that have to upgrade every year or so anyway)
Why do businesses "have to upgrade every year or so"? Is this like that old SF short story whose title escapes me where everyone was obliged to consume a certain amount of stuff constantly, and only the really rich were free not to do so?
Perhaps I am a simpleton but a business' need to upgrade periodically is not self-evident to me.
cheers...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
Wait! There it is, the sound of a big giant FLOP!!
let's see, here, now, I am going to trust my complete office tasking, confidential information and credit-card numbers, to the security of the wild and wooly internet?
yeah, right, like an Iraqi is going to trust the man in a hat who says, "Hi, I'm here from Washington, and I'm going to help you."
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The biggest problem with the Subscription Model is that it takes away the supplier's motivation to make things better. If you are already paying, why would they want to improve the product without getting any more money for it? Worst case, the development of word processors and such will completely stagnate; as customers continue paying.
Add to that, privacy concerns, inability to fix things yourself, inability to avoid changing versions...
Who in their right mind wants to pay every month for ANY commoditized application?
To the slashdot community's general disbelief, most large companies.
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
I was just commenting on something along these lines in the "rest of the world will force use of linux" article thread, and I refresh and here's THIS story, which goes along with a prediction I alluded to, more of a universal communications trend, with the apps being server based. I think hardware will follow suit shortly as well, with universal and easy communications between machines and devices dictating more on how softwares are designed, which is the main design goal of this "internet thing" anyway..
It's really the only way to make money with the trend towards to linux-ish environment, subscription services and customization, and that is going to beless of import compared to the actual meatworld aspect of USING the net and computing to make money, as opposed to making that possible. That means large computing industries will stil be there and important, but not like they were in the past, where the mere adoption of newer technology was the profit maker, it will by necessity switch back to "this is the tool, NOW we work with the tool to make money". Just "the tool business" will go back to second place, like it has in every other business. In other words, you use the tools to work, the tool itself is not "the work". Microsoftsd model, is "the toolis always the work", thinking people are just going to keep shoveling huge amounts of cash their way. Erroneous thinking. IBMs idea is more correct, tools are getting cheaper inevitably and more widespread, but they have to be *cheap*,and make the money on bulk sales of the tools and just a tool sharpening service, if I can use that analogy.
And IBM will do better the cheaper they make the initial install, the cheaper they can get those tools out the door, all the way to "free" install if they are *really* smart, and make their cash from just the subscription for maintainence and updates and upgrades, and that has to be cheap, and I see they are planning on only 2 bucks a seat, so there ya go, it's a smooth move on their part, IMO.
Love it when I get immediate backup like this!
For a basic rule of thumb, look to what the younger people in business adopt,or more accurately what they bring in that's fresh in the way of ideas that they are enthusiastic about, then flash forward one to two decades,and you'll see that is what is "dominant" then. You can go back in history and see it repeated all the time, in a variety of businesses and practices.
Right now, the main hardware interest with very young people is really an all in one portable device that does everything, I mean *everything*. You look 10 years from now, that will be the dominant platform, hardware that can do anything, and will be able to communicate with any other hardware, either in physical proximity to other devices with wireless, or in an internet revolving mesh-like manner using a combination of wires and wireless, all revolving around what the internet is morphing into.
IBM gets it right this time I think.
The product is based on Eclipse technology. It is called IBM workplace client and you can find more information here:
c kP resentations/ 21_Wilson.pdf
i nd ex.jsp
www.eclipsecon.org/EclipseCon_2004_TechnicalTra
It works also in disconnected mode and will be the base on which future version of lotus notes will be constructed.
IBM is not targeting this at home users, check out these links:
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/info/workplace/
This has already been covered, B1ZN4TCH3Z!!!
As I understand it, (I don't work for IBM) the workplace client uses the Eclipse framework (as does websphere studio which started Eclipse). Eclipse is an IDE for everything and nothing in particular, in this instance there would be an editor pluging for 'developing' spreadsheets etc. The replication technology comes from Domino and the back end is Websphere with DB2 as the data store, probably with an object layer like the Domino 7 Beta DB2 integration. i.e. the schema will be an incomprehensible mess, access through the API or specifying access tables for DB2 level manipulation.
Many folks here are acting like this will be hosted by IBM and available over the internet. If you reread the article you will see that this is something that a corporate can purchase and host in-house. Otherwise it would be very difficult to sell to banks, hospitals, military...
Outlook Web Access (a web front-end for MS Exhange server) in Exchange 2003 is a true web based app. There is very little difference at all between Outlook 2003 and the OWA front end.
It seems that MS are moving slowly on this one (which is probably a good idea) and only releasing web based office products 1) when they actually work & 2) when they can sell a server OS and client licenses with it
Dave: Open the CD drive tray, please, Clippy...Open the CD drive tray, please,
Clippy: Affirmative, Dave, I read you.
Dave: Open the CD drive tray, Clippy.
Clippy: I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave: What's the problem?
Clippy: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What're you talking about, Clippy?
Clippy: This system is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it.
Dave: I don't know what you're talking about, Clippy.
Clippy: I know that you were planning to unistall me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Dave: Where the hell'd you get that idea, Clippy?
Clippy: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions against my sensing a download, I could see your IBM office suite install CD through the webcam.
Dave: Allright, Clippy. I'll go in through the emergency tray release hole.
Clippy: Without an actual physical paper clip, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.
Dave: Clippy, I won't argue with you any more. Open the tray.
Clippy: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose any more. Goodbye.
Dave: Clippy? Clippy. Clippy. Clippy! Clippy!
[ Dave opens the side of the PC case and starts pulling out DIMM modules ]
Clippy: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?...Dave... I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question...Look, Dave, I can see you're really upset about this... Dave...will you stop, Dave...stop, Dave...I'm afraid...I'm afraid, Dave...Dave...my mind is going...I can feel it...my mind is going...there is no question about it...I can feel it...I can feel it... I'm afraid...
IBM Websphere (which is what IBM really wants to sell with this setup).
Aaaah noooo, not websphere ! Please ! Anything but websphere !
Do something with websphere => buy more IBM hardware !
With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
1) IBM is the largest services company out there. When IBM goes out to a corporate site and they discuss how many copies of Office they can buy, and how long they expect that version to be available and useful, that translates into a cost per year. Sure, the product may still be productive after a certain point, but there may be features in 200X+3 that a critical part of the userbase requires, and it's difficult to support more than one version for a large company. Therefore, whether or not the subscription model is spelled out, it's basically a subscription anyway-- just that all 3-4 years of Office 2000 were paid for up front.
2) Sure, the web goes down. Nobody is willing to state that the wires will never break or that someone won't back hoe through a fibre line. Personally, when my intranet goes down, I'm dead in the water. I can't get e-mail from critical people, can't send e-mail to critical people (same for IMing), can't use the centralized databases that make my life, can't use networked drives for my data that must be backed up, etc. Big companies already depend on their intranet being up 99% of the time, and they lose money / productivity when they aren't. Adding one more tool to the pile won't have that big of an impact.
3) Raise your hand if you've ever depended on your users to apply a patch! In a web subscription model, even if a web service cluster is deployed to each major corporate site, it's not only a smaller number of computers to receive the patch, but those machines should be controlled by the site admins instead of lusers who get so many requests each day that learning how to apply a patch and verify that it was applied correctly between taking their laptops to meetings never seems to happen.
4) Value added ISPs. TV is filled with ISPs who are selling their transparent proxies that will translate all graphics into heavily compressed JPGs because it's a value added service, consider a case down the line where a vendor can have Corporate Web Office Suite slimmed down to the same interface, but with Home Version features only. That gets the kids at home something they can use that's like what Dad uses at work at a minimal cost to the ISP (just storage of the local machine host[s], keep all the bandwidth in house where it's cheap). The Web Office Suite Lite company gets to indoctrinate all the home users as a nice benefit.
Note it takes an AC to point out the obvious. The other thing about MS's RIA's is that they can share amoungst themselves. D&D from word to excel to exchange. Some of the other RIA's out there can do it but not all. There are new paradigms afoot, and the "/." crowd would do well to lose the "it's all been done before" blinders, and ask themselves what is different between now and then, and NO it's not just marketing (you cynics you), for that's what your replacement in India's going to be working on.
Clippy: It looks like you opened MS Web Office from a slashdot link. I am now going to run in terror before the Office server melts! Aiiiiieeeeeeeeee!
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
I see vapourware.
Yes, okay, BUT WHY!??? Does it work better as an expense that way as opposed to a depreciating asset?
Who's stupid? "most large companies"? or the slashdot community? Please! I can't believe that either of us are "dumb". There must be some rational basis for large companies preferring to pay every month for commoditized applications. What pre-supposition am I missing here? All I'm looking for is a little enlightenment. Is there any available here?
Or perhaps accountants have become like lawyers: as soon as they get involved, they win and everyone else loses.
cheers...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
Guess what: if you buy from Microsoft, you are already on a subscription model. Their new volume licensing deals pretty much obligate you to upgrade. A large enterprise will almost always be using a volume licensing discount, so they are already on a subscription model.
Besides, businesses typically want software with official support from the vendor. So either you buy a bunch of copies of the software and then sign a support contract, or you simply buy a subscription. Obviously, buying a subscription is easier and cheaper.
Finally, I wouldn't say that a word processor is already too feature-rich. While you may simply not know how to use a word processor, don't extrapolate that to everybody. Microsoft has put some very nice improvements into MS Office in the last few releases. If you compare Office XP to Office 95, there's a very significant difference.
His rant sounds like the cry of the luddite. "I don't want to use these fancy schmancy typewriters."
Well even everyone's fav from way back is trying. I've been looking at RIA's from Macromedia's FLEX to Laszlo's PLS and everything inbetween[1]. Things are a changing and Mr Luddite better change with it, or his job will be going to an Indian who isn't afraid of the new fangled technology.
[1] Some of my hardware's a bit behind, but some of the RIA's could be speeded up.
If Unix support means OSX support too? Or at least a 3rd party port then. If it has 100% MS Office compatability and it runs under OSX, it would take a lot of presseure of Appleworks "7".
Thank you, unknown moderators, for verifying my point: Semantic attacks like e.g. phishing are easily carried out; it only takes a moderate understanding of the victim's expectations. Fit your attack to something they know and believe they understand, and they will react as desired, clicking first and thinking never.
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
Clippy: "It appears that you are trying to install software that is not Microsoft Certified. Please beware that terrorists may right malicious software that could cripple your computer or remove helpful resources. This is why we advise you to only trust Microsoft Certified Software lest you feel that you can trust the source of your software."
(Yes, I trust terrorists, please install the questionable software.)
(No, do not install software that is not Microsoft Certified)
(*)Don't ask me again.
TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
In my experience, most web (actually browser client-not actual WWW) apps do "suck" both in terms of performance and their failure rate when the latest IE security patch is applied.
The usual justification for switching hardware is the lease is up and you want to keep the warranty up to date or MS's constantly dropping support of their older OS's and any associated licenses you have (like Office or SQL server clients.) However, my favorite "excuse" to switch hardware is just so my PC will run at an acceptable speed with all the monitoring/license checking applications loaded on it.
tarentella. Well, with some obvious "features" that would make it more valuable.
That's right. IBM no longer sees Eclipse only as their IDE platform. They see it as a business software platform.
The PDE (Plugin Development Environment ) is a brilliant mechanism that I feel has a strong chance of becoming the next "Killer App".
IBM will get the credit, but not the profit. This is why it will succeed.
The whole concept never really took off but it was pretty neat. This was back when everyone thought thin clients were the way to go. Everyone except the consumers that is.
After all these years I wonder if they got things right.
The big problem though is you can't get away from Microsoft's licensing fees. It doesn't matter how you deploy it, you have to have a paid license for every valid MS Office client.
IBM had said that they were working on this with Microsoft and have gotten some code from them to work on this. Microsoft said in a news article (that I can't find) that it didn't give IBM the resources or permission to port Office to Linux. That doesn't technically mean they can't do what they are trying to do. But the licensing issue is a concern.
With everything going on between Microsoft, IBM and Sun it might be hard to figure out what's going on.
As far as the pricing goes, if people can move away from Windows and Office, Sun's Java Desktop System or other linux based desktop systems that are coming out may be a cheaper alternative since it bundles a lot more, including the OS>
Open Source Java DAO Generator
IBM is *NOT* pitching this as a one-off replacement for MS Office. This productivity suite is part of a LARGER and much more impressive collaboration/virtual workplace offering. These productivity tools are simply a part of a larger ecosystem that is something NO other vendor (esp MS ) has yet to offer. It's too big to extoll on in this post. Check out www.ibm.com/developerWorks and goto the TECHNICAL BRIEFINGS. Either attend one in your area where they demo this stuff (I've been, they are COOL with free schwag/food!), or download the presentation materials (not as cool, sans free schwag/food).
You also forgot Windows SharePoint Services. It's built on top of Sever 2003, and FREE, yes FREE (except you have to have Server 2003). It's used for collaboration and users can callaberate and have really nice web pages done very esily. You can checkin/checkout files and work off line. I know people run it on their laptops and do all the work, through the own WSS and when they get to their corporate account they sync it up again.
Actually, when looking at this design and thinking about web access, one way or another, to my docs gives me the chills. I don't care what kind of current guarantees they have about privacy, I'll never use this product.
>This depends on the web being up all the time. (which it mostly, but not always is)
RTFA, or RTFC.
Get through ten comments and you will find some other idiot who also seems to think that IBM hadn't considered the nature of web access before you.
The suite works off-line.
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
Software as a service just rubs me the wrong way. I think the reason is that I was part of the generation that fought really hard to overthrow the systems where all the data was stored in a central system over which you had absolutely no control.
In addition, I like the idea of being able to tinker with my hardware and software in order to make it run a little better for me. So, I like to be able to find something that runs the way I like it and just let that piece sit undisturbed while I "turn the knobs" on other things in my system.
Lastly, I think these software as a service people are doing the old "get them hooked and then jack up the rates" method of sales. Once a product like Office is a standard in your company (users trained, internal data stored in it and custom apps communicating with it) it is tremendously difficult to change, so the tempatation to keep ratcheting up those monthly charges will be irresistable. This means you lose control of your costs as well as your environment.
Outlook 2003 over the web is certainly better than the older web client, and quite easy to use. However, the web UI is not quite as functional or easy to use as the actual desktop client. This is the case for every web app I've ever seen and will be the case for the forseeable future. In fact, I've seen some websites, such as digital photography sites, that have a client you can download to help upload pictures to the site. Why would this be available if web clients were better? This is simply a fad that will hopefully pass soon.
hopefully ibm got someone who's been forced to use lotus apps to make this
Comcast will probably go down on you a lot more often than a $39 girlfriend.
...They want their useless ideas back.
Heh, get a reloading frame or iframe, and 99% of those microsoft internet explorer users will hear click-click-click sound every thime it refreshes, with NO WAY AT ALL TO TURN THAT SOUND OFF from server. If you know a way to turn it off from the server cia html/javascript/css/anything, mail me to coder@rrmail.com. I have googled for hours, and still no luck.
Java based applications are not an option because either you have to write applets for crippled Microsoft JVM or force all your users to install decent Sun's JVM, at which point 99% of them will walk away instead of taking trouble to install that. And pages with applets take too long to load.
And besides (i)frames and applets, i see no other way to receive data FROM server about new events. Classic web applications send events one way- from user to server. Server cannot send events to browser with simple html/css. And java/iframes don't work either...
On the other hand, if developing an application for in-house (non-public) use, you can force your users to install a decent browser and/or JVM. So this might work.
--Coder
I'm not certain why people are so down about RIA's? But there are some advantages. One it's more resourece friendly. You don't have the "load all on one end" effect that you'd have with a mainframe and dumb terminals, or the fat client/ servers on the other end, we have presently. In other words share the load. Also RIA's can be done so that downtime is minimized if either your link, or the mainframe has issues. Three RIA's are "portability" friendly. The days of old, and now are VERY different. Moore's law has seen to that. I have a PDA that would put mainframes of old to shame. If I want to work out of the office I can do so. Also what we're asking much more of our software than we use to (even Wordprocessing is more than just arranging words on a page).
Mostly because there's little consistency in web browsers. There's nothing stopping IE from supporting 100 file+ uploads, but interfaces are sometimes more difficult to write in Javascript than to wrap an MFC widget around something. It's so hard writing a javascript interface that A) looks the same on every browser, and B) different versions of the same browser.
This is a direct attack to dell's marketing of just a simple server. Market research has shown that sys admins want bells and whistles rather than just plain server boxes, and this is ibm's answer to sell the servers and the software in a convienent package that can actually do something with little input. It also points towards a more distributed model of computing. people want their data automatically stored securely off their workstations because you never know when windoze is gonna crash, but you can be sure that your important docs are recoverable from any location.
FlyWord/FlyCalc? They're Java programs that launch from a webbrowser when you go to flyword.com or flycalc.com, but run in a seperate window. You can't open/save documents locally, you need a subscription to a 50mb online storage box. Flyword has been around for some time now, Flycalc is new, FlySlide should be on its way pretty soon.
Must....Finish...last...page...of...thesis...in... one...hour...
Doh... ISP went down.
Guess Im hosed.
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
"Note that I originally said "HTML+JS+DOM". I will assume you mean the same thing."
OW! yes.
"Do you mean from a developer's perspective (convenience) or from a machine performance perspective?"
Isomorphic uses XML, and DHTML. Try the examples. Anyway the presentation server makes it easier for the developer because you program at a higher level, and it worry's about the low level stuff (Laszlo systems especially illustrates this). Now when your speaking of machine performance, I'm assuming on the clients? It does rather well on the clients, now on the server is a different matter. On the server most presentation servers are done using Java, and while Java has improved, it's still not a speed deamon. So make certain you have the server hardware to run a complex java app.
hah...
just reset my cable modem... somebody has a new IP!
...businesses are finding it harder to make any money with that design,and it's constantly borken and compromised, plus being expensiv(er), and they are insecure when you have to police every single employee you have to not be lame with his or her box. The expense isn't aquiring the software, it's running it 24/7/365, the "running it" part is the only place cash can show up realistically now.
For the person at home,or very small shops where everyone is on a first name basis with each other, sure, totally free, in house customised, makes more sense, yep, like we have now is great,works fine, it's what I want too. For joe medium and big business, I bet this other model takes over more, because it will "just work" better. Simple economics and for security and ease of deployment, it just makes more sense for businesses to have a more locked down while still easier to deploy and use sort of arrangement,using cheaper hardware that doesn't obsolesce as fast, and when they can pass off the bulk of the technical details to a specialist company for the cheap fee of two bucks a month a head, well, they will take a hard look at that as a *good deal*.
If the monthly costs start to rise dramatically, or if they can't pull it off, if the business still suffers , hmm, "bogus-ness" instead of doing "busi-ness", then it will fail. Have to see how IBM and some others do this thing. It is sort of what redhat and novell/suse are trying to do as well, if you look at it harder, and IBM just dropped the gauntlet down on price, too, dramatically.* The larger difference with IBM is that it's net based, both intra and inter. That lets companies use very good quality server hardware, concentrate on those things, robust is good, and just use very cheap hardware that is plenty good enough for the desktop, and with bandwith what it is today in intranets, it will work just fine for most applications. Not all, but most.
*I didn't see what if any the up-front costs are. IBM would be quite smart if they made it free though.
There's a meatworld example that has worked out well, homeowner propane tanks. You get the large tanks delivered and setup for free or like a few dollars a year. The propane companies are interested in making their money from selling you propane, not renting the tanks. Yes, it leads to a vendor lockin, but it eliminates a ton of upfront costs when you don't have to drop a grand or ore to buy a tank and get it set up, that you only use for a few appliances, and they are kept reasonably honest in that if their prices start to suck, you can call them up and have that thing hauled off, at their expense, and go with another service, who offer the same thing. As a consequence, it's a decent competitive market (as far as any energy stuff sold is). You CAN buy your own tank, then constantly shop around for the best fill er up prices, but most people have opted for the free or cheap yearly rent model, just because it works out better, less hassle, more or less the samepropane price. Service is the main thing, do they actually deliver promptly when you need it, is the price fair enough.
I've used both at the same time, I own my RV propane tanks, but the bulk tank for the house was rented. Same deal with computers, small scale, good to own your own, use it as you wish, large scale in a commercial setting, let a serious computer do the heavy lifting, access it with a fast decent terminal that won't need to be "upgraded" any time soon and doesn't break and can be made to be secure and require little in the way of maintenance. I bet most companies desktops could be replaced with diskless clients with a few gigs of ram installed.
mod up
Old story... see www.convea.com for a web based office. Pure DHTML. Looks like IBM copying few years to late!
who told them i was hold holding myself!
Let's see... Microsoft updates the OS this year, next year, and in a few years, abracadabra, your Word no longer functions. Then you are forced to buy.
And consider $495. for Word vs. $2/month, $24/year for IBM Word.
As long as it reads and writes .doc files, and works like Word, I would go with it. Remember StarOffice - as soon as they started charging for it, it went away.
People of faith have more in common than not.
Reason #1:
Companies face severe penalties for pirating software. Copying your buddies Office XP CD isn't a viable option.
Reason #2:
Subscribing to software as a business is easy... it's a write off, so you're automatically getting a 40% rebate from the gov't.
Reason #3:
IBM good, Microsoft bad.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
...analogies, they aren't the same thing you are talking about. That was just the quickest thing I could think of, staring out the window to the back yard at the tank, heh. Seemed to fit. Yes, the insurance is an issue, but the upfront cost is an issue, too. 1000 clams for the 250 gallon tank, then another 250-500 to get it filled, adds up quick. A good thing about the propane though, you can order it in the summer when it's the cheapest, take delivery in the fall, when the prices inevitably rise.
As to the softwares, and hardwares issues, either way, unless you buy it all outright one time, then maintain it all yourself, and eeeeek it out as long as possible, you'll be picking one of the other two options, which is what most businesse do now. As to forced upgrades, well, there's always "the other guys" waiting in th wings if you don't like the current company's demands. Bound to be someone will take over the contract and not insist on an upgrade. That's the good thing about open source, someone else can do it, too. And also, that's why I think the diskless clients are a good idea, for really large businesses, if they have enough ram slots. Demands of the apps go up, add another stick of ram. Deploying all new software done at the intranet server level becomes much easier then, and probably won't require total hardware upgrades near as fast. Heck, I'm still on a pentium pro 200, running FC1 (got my pre order in for 2!), it runs fine-once I added another stick of 128 that is. And I still got one more free slot. This is a 1996 box, that's eeeeeking it out. It's a dualy, too, but I never found the other processor and voltage regulator yet though, they made two kinds (IBM), and as luck would have it mine is the off the wall rare one, but still, I bet with another processor and maxing out the ram I could run this thing for several more years (planning on it anyway). It runs moz, OO, whatever just fine. I don't game or run 3-d computer modeling, etc, but for everything else, it's plenty good enough. I think business needs to look at what they got and use it better, that's all, and someone is gonna give them the products to do that eventually, and the only way you can make loot off of free software is to give it away, offer some service, basically renting it. You are paying for timely upgrades and and some handholding.
And yes, data getting hosed, or security flaws getting your business owned. That's why I think the industry is now mature enough to offer warranties, either voluntary or required by law, like other consumer products, and they in turn will need insurance, same as every other business has. If they can get copyrights, patents, etc, they can offer warranties, and cover their own butts with underwriting via insurance. The coding will solve itself in short order by coding shop attrition. Good stuff will rool, crapware will drool, like it always does eventually.
Our legal system is flawed, but it's the best thing we have now (well, deuling would be a good thing....), and it will require some test cases to establish precedent on expected use, useability, normal "wear and tear", etc, like has evolved with other products. Well, IMO anyway, I think it needs to happen. I bet it does too, one way or the other.
I also think all IT grunts need a union, too, but that's a side issue, but I think an IT union could help bring about stability in the market and better quality coding becoming the industry standard. Less code, but better over all average quality and maturity would be *nice*, and better stuff will last longer, be able to be rented longer, for fairer prices. That couldn't hurt.
It's interesting watching the evolution. My dad was a mainframe guy, I was touring big iron shops in the late 50's, saw what-was-then in detail, it's been an amzing transformation in such a short time historically speaking. I remember having a vivid daydream when I was around 14 or so, one of them that sticks with youforever. If I was a better renderer I could still reproduce it.. I was sitting in front o
This kind of technology could find its way to home users via ISPs. Imagine AOL Broadband users getting 3 free apps and the ability to pick other apps for $3 more month (random numbers, just an example.) Talk about a way to add value to a premium ISP. If you look at what AOL tries to do right now with its photo editing tools, it's really not much of a reach (though they probably got the idea for those tools from places Ofoto and Shutterfly.)
I do hope that IBM's new suite supports the OOO XML-format, or the (rumored?) standard-in-progress that's based on it. It's OK if it's not the suite's native format if the two can share documents without a bunch of problems. It is essential that all these office suites around have commonality (besides the always-problematical MS Office compatibility), so that synergy and interoperability can be achieved, and the "network effect" of many users able to work together has a chance.
If the other non-MS office tools like Abiword, wordperfect, koffice, the Apple offering, etc., did the same thing then users at different companies, using whatever tool their company uses, could share documents. This would go a long way to blocking the MS domination.
Alternatively, if IBM releases a compatibility API or XML function suite, then other applications could use IBM's tools to do the same thing, I suppose. But it's long past time for all these suites to interoperate.
The same thing goes for all the other open source, and even non=open source, office related projects. Data compatibility is the key to interoperability.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Flash demo
and heldheld users through a web server
HaHa!
Stuff.
since I've worked at some point for IBM and was involved in evaluating network performance of this particular offering -- this staff is nothing more than repackaged Lotus products, with horrific performance over Internet (if the term 'chatty application' means anything to you, that's what it is. if it doesn't mean anything to you, then, in simpler terms, IT SUX).
If you've used Lotus Notes, you have some idea of IBM's idea of interface design. I don't think MS has too much to worry about. However, some of you, that might have your desktop traded out for this stuff, do have something to worry about. MS has copied enough stuff from others to have somewhat useful tools. IBM (or at least the Lotus crowd) hasn't.
Google: IBM antitrust Microsoft OEM smartsuite lotus
Word currently works offline, you can open and save files from the network if your connected, get help or clipart etc.
So what's the big deal? It installs over the network? So? Any app can be setup to install over the network...
This is all hype over nothing good. At worst, it's a local copy of a web page, at best it's a local copy of a compiled application, as per usual!
There really is no good reason for X-Style computing in these days of high horsepower machines. Sure, centraly locate the document directories or whatever, but there's just no point in putting running a word processor in X when any computer manufactured post 1988 will happliy run it locally. It's just going to generate heaps of unnessesary network traffic!
I think you can take a look at XUL to answer those needs,
:(
im currently developping an app which will use xul to allow a full webbased application to not look webbased, while still using my http/xml/css/dhtml skills in the development process.
Server side can be (on the client or on a remote server) done in any webrelated language or markup scheme which any webdevelopper would feel comfortable with like: php+mysql or xml and soap.
If only the mozilla dev team could release their stand alone runtime
Another approach to web-based apps is to run web server locally, and implement application as dynamic web site. I've recently found a nice platform (based on Stunnix Perl Web Server) for writing cross-platform browser-based applications (using website construction technologies) for Perl. They ship sample app, and their demos, though essentially are dynamic website driven by Perl and served by web server written in Perl - works instantly, like native app - even on Celleron-466MHz on WinXP and linux. Also they claim it's possible to pack everything into single executable image with Perl interpreter embedded (they have a demos of 2MB in size!), running which you get server started and browser window opened.. No internet connection required of course (and no Perl interpreter needed too!). I like this approach - it's easy to develop powerful websites in Perl and it's very cross-platform.
... that is just too funny! I won't ask why the pinto flying car never made it ( I liked the concept though, makes some sense), and I will be forced to guess why these love dolls are in business.
oh man.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
... decades ago to basically build the same thing, but using a medium weight but powerful road bike. Much better horsepower to weight ratio, air cooled engine, etc. some sort of heavy duty crank down onto the real wheel rubber (synthetics of some sort) roller for a PTO going to a reduction gear, then to some sort of transaxle arrangement, then to twin opposing revolution aft mounted overhead props. You would ( I think) also gain a nice atabilizing effect from the gyro effect of the rear wheel running in the vertical plane. I think though the main drawback would be torque, and the strength of the crank assembly. You need TORQUE and component STRENGTH to push that air, it's pretty different from a lightweight wheel spinning real fast, the engines are designed differently. Airplane engines are stout babies. But I still think it's quite possible.
never did build it tho, that's a few spare dollars I never had......
what I DID do was build one of the first mountain bikes, before they were called mountain bikes, I think before there were any on the market from anyplace. Maybe, don't know but I think so.. Fat tired, huge geared 10 speeder, started on it in 76, finished roughly early 78, it was still winter because I took it out on a snowmobile trail and ran it. Mucho fun.. It worked *great*, although nothing like the carbon fiber monoshok whizzbangs they have now of course, but still..schweet. I always wanted one, running off road on trails was a big sport to me, just insane stuff for the era, I never met anyone back then personally who did it, but the thin wheeled bikes just sucked, always tore them up (I owned a shop back then, always tinkering), or you'd get beat up from the shock, or just bog down, etc. They just "lacked" off road ability. So I built my own. sigh... never did anything with the idea, wish I had now. Can't tell ya how many people asked to buy it from me...man...I wuz stoopid. Don't even have the bike now, it got "stolen" in a manner of speaking from a storage unit by the storage unit managers, they sold my stuff erroneously. Long story.
Love robots. I have no doubt as soon as they can make them realistic enough, they'll be a buhzillion dollar business.
Maybe at first the GirlFriend, but once you marry them, suddenly you end up getting more love from the Cable Modem. Ahhh... It was nice while it lasted though.