AjaxWrite to "Compete" with MS Word

prostoalex writes "Michael Robertson (of MP3.com, Linspire, SIPPhone, GizmoProject and MP3Tunes.com fame) is launching a Web-only competitor to Microsoft Office by creating a suite of applications replicating Microsoft Office look and feel. From the posting: "But ajaxWrite is just the start. We have a library of applications we have been working on to replace most of the standard PC software titles. Every week we will launch a new sophisticated program on Wednesday at 12:00 PST on ajaxlaunch.com. These programs will push the boundaries of what people believe is possible today with web-delivered software. These programs look and operate much like their traditional software cousins, but are cross-platform, loaded dynamically, and are available to users at no charge. I'm convinced if you try a few of these products you will understand how the software business will fundamentally change." ajaxWrite is the first launched product."

Comments

Not likely

[AKAImBatman]

AjaxWrite to "Compete" with MS Word

Not if he doesn't learn a lot more about the DOM, and fast.

I was all ready to complement the AjaxWrite team on having finally delivered the first online wordprocessor with full font-sizing abilities. Then I realized something: There are only 7 font sizes. The same 7 that are supported by every rich text editor in existance. Why only seven? Because those seven are built into the rich text editing component that's included with Mozilla and IE. If you want to allow arbitray font sizes, you have to delve down into the DOM and start some complex tweaking.

All AjaxWrite has done is hide these facts by assigning standard font sizes. Anyone with the right info could replicate this "feat" pretty easily.

Sorry, nothing to see here.

The bright side is that his app supports the Microsoft DOC format. How well it supports it is an open question, but he probably is using a library like POI to do the heavy lifting. Nothing wrong with that, but also nothing ground-breaking. I imagine that many users will drop this tool as soon as they realize they can't properly match font sizes.

Let's check back next week and see if his next attempt is more interesting.

Re:Not likely

[n9uxu8]

Support for DOC is not good at this point. Open any doc file and watch the simplest format be mangled. Save an Awrite doc file and then open it in word...marvel at the fantasticrapistally mangled doc. Nice idea...needs work...lots of work.

Dave

Re:Not likely

[AKAImBatman]

On top of everything, I just realized that this is a XUL application. i.e. It's not going to run in anything but Mozilla-based browsers. Still, you've got to love the spin:

ajaxWrite is a streamlined word processor, comparable to Microsoft Word. To keep the program lean, we left out some obscure advanced features

Apparently, spell checkers, word counts, arbitrary font sizes, find (there's a menu item, but it's disabled), and hyperlinks are all "obscure advanced features". Here, let me fix that for you, Mike:

ajaxWrite is a streamlined word processor, comparable to Microsoft Wordpad.

See? Much better. =D

Re:Not likely

[Frymaster]

we left out some obscure advanced features

i'll say... like a privacy policy perhaps? does boddy who runs this thing own my content?

microsoft may have all sorts of draconian licensing policies, but at least i know what they are. with this thing i can just type up all sorts of private content that can be read easily and, apparently, legally by who knows who.

Re:Not likely

[LnxAddct]

Seriously, my GMail composer has more features, including spell check, just for writing an email. This ajaxWrite just took firefox's rich text editor and threw tabbed DOMs into the picture. Completely unoriginal, there are significantly more advanced open source editors like the FCKEditor out already(That's a link to their demo, not their index just fyi).
Regards,
Steve

Re:Not likely

[fury88]

More like "ajaxWrong" huh?

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your browser does not support this application.

Please download the latest version of Mozilla Firefox from http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/."

oh great, so we've replaced OS-specific software with browser-specific software.

Re:Not likely

[Orion Blastar]

That is because Ajax, which the Word Processor is based on, has to be "tweaked" for each web browser in order to work. First it is Mozilla Firefox, maybe next they will support Safari, Opera, IE 6.0, etc., but only after writing a modified version for those browsers and have the web site detect the browser type and load the correct Ajax script. I already had this discussion on the Microsoft Atlas story on the limits and compatability of Ajax and Javascripts.

As someone else noted, this is basically a Wordpad type replacement. No spell check, no grammar check, no advanced features that MS-Word users have relied on.

Corel Java Office was once in Beta testing, but Corel removed it. OpenOffice.org is written mostly in Java, but its Word Processing ability is a lot more advanced than AjaxWord.

If you want more than a Wordpad, and you don't mind downloading FOSS try AbiWord it can edit and write Word documents as well. It has been ported to Windows, Linux, OSX, etc. Unlike OO.org, it has a small footprint.

Re:Not likely

[Emeye]

Try opening a file created in it in Microsoft Word...It looks compatible...until you switch to either 'print view' or 'normal'...each character is on a seperate page...

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything this is just a competitor to "Word Pad" !!

Do really think this has feature set of MS-Word. Dream on...

Re:Not likely

[AKAImBatman]

That is because Ajax, which the Word Processor is based on, has to be "tweaked" for each web browser in order to work.

No it doesn't. If you code to W3C standards, the only browser that usually requires significant tweaking is Internet Explorer. The reason why IE has to be tweaked is because it doesn't support the standards. (Hello? Microsoft? I'm still waiting on DOM2 Events! *sigh*)

Thankfully, the design of Javascript means that you can patch the webbrowser for your session. It's a little tricky, but it's quite doable to add DOM2 Events support to IE on the fly. And if Microsoft ever fixes their browser, your extensions will automatically deactive. It's actually a pretty cool way of doing things. Especially when compared to the User String checking that we web programmers used to have to do.

As someone else noted, this is basically a Wordpad type replacement.

Yeah. That would be me.

only after writing a modified version for those browsers and have the web site detect the browser type and load the correct Ajax script

In this case, Michael is going to have to rewrite nearly his entire application to make it work on other browsers. His choice of XUL over HTML/XHTML has sealed that fate. On the other hand, XUL means that he was able to write this app within a few weeks, then invent a story about "smokey bar rooms" and "mystery technologies" that took two years to develop. Sure Michael, sure.

Re:Not likely

[krewemaynard]

Support for .doc files between different computers running the same version of Word can even be tricky, not to mention differing versions. So far I've had much better experiences with OOo's OpenDocument format. Just waiting for the suite itself to catch up to Office (looking at you here, Calc).

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

even Geowrite had more features...

Re:Not likely

[JulesLt]

Looks to me, having done a quick test, that the app is written using XUL rather than AJAX techniques - it's an exploitation of Ajax hype, on basis most people just think that means 'web apps'. Next : Flex apps marketed as AJAX.

Re:Not likely

[CemeteryWall]

FCKEditor? I won't remember that tomorrow or even in a few minutes time.

ajaxWrite! I'll remember that for years.

Re:Not likely

[KarmaMB84]

OpenOffice.org is not mostly written in Java. Having too much Java in some OO.o 2.0 stuff got everyone up in a fuss...

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing that post got ANY mod points. ajaxWrite uses NO XUL; ask them on the ajaxlaunch.com forums yourself if you don't believe me.

Re:Not likely

[abigor]

"OpenOffice.org is written mostly in Java, but its Word Processing ability is a lot more advanced than AjaxWord."

Huh? Last time I checked, it was written in C++. There are a few minor tools that require Java (Report Autopilot, some filters), but nothing that affects core functionality.

Re:Not likely

[Pleb'a.nz]

FWIW, it's easier to change/install a browser than it is a new OS.

Re:Not likely

[jaseuk]

No spell checker / thesaurus, no styles, no page breaks, no context menus, no word count, indexes, contents. Even find / replace seems disabled. Whilst MS Word does have some exotic features, this doesn't seem to even compare to Wordpad.

Why couldn't they build on something like FCKEditor, which leaves this in the dust.

Jason.

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares?

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... I love FCKEditor and use it for all my apps for doing XHTML user input. However, I always call it "Fuck-Editor" for short.. helps me remember the name :-D

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there's a bunch of those... FCKEditor, FreeTextBox, etc. And there are some scripts for spelling too like Aspell.

I use things like that intensively in web apps. They're far better and far more useful than what this guy has made - which is no word replacement by any means...

If I can't afford MS Office and don't want to pirate it, there is Still OOo, which is FAR better all around (features, doc format compatibility, etc) and also free. This is a total and pointless waste of time.

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

I was all ready to complement the AjaxWrite team on having finally delivered the first online wordprocessor with full font-sizing abilities.

Grammar/spelling tip of the day:

Barbeque sauce complements smoked brisket.
Allow me to compliment you on your good grammar and spelling.

Re:Not likely

[Tim Browse]

I agree sometimes it's hard to get Word to agree with itself on formatting, but I tried ajaxWrite and loaded a document into it from my PC. It was a simple document - half a page of text, with some indented lines. It rendered the entire document with double line spacing and every line was centred horizontally. I think it lost the bold attribute of some of the text, too. In summary, it made AbiWord's doc support look exemplary.

Not hugely impressed. If his breathless blog entry about his disruptive new technology and business model wasn't such a load of Web 2.0 bollocks I'd probably give it another chance.

I expect it's a beta or something, so it's ok to be crap.

Re:Not likely

[AKAImBatman]

If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. The menus and toolbars are dead giveaways. They're native XUL components. He may have used CSS techniques to make them expose them through HTML (it's a bit hard to check with the site slashdotted), but it's definitely XUL.

Re:Not likely

[nofx_3]

Gotta agree with you there, as an analyst I am tied to excel, and truth be told it really is much better than any other spreadsheet app I have used. I could care less about word, and I loathe powerpoint, I could really use any alternative to those two without care, but I will stick with office until a decent alternative to excel comes along.
 
-Kappy

Re:Not likely

[AKAImBatman]

ajaxWrite uses NO XUL; ask them on the ajaxlaunch.com forums yourself if you don't believe me.

*Ahem* From ajaxbrian on their forum:

Firefox is much more Ajax-friendly, and it has been much easier to prototype for it. Also, some of our code requires XUL, which is Firefox-only; we're having to devise work-arounds for other browsers, and those aren't ready yet.

(Emphasis mine.)

So either you're trolling, or you're not very bright. Next time keep in mind that, "fools rush in where Angels fear to tread."

Re:Not likely

[shutdown -p now]

No it doesn't. If you code to W3C standards, the only browser that usually requires significant tweaking is Internet Explorer.

"Ajax" (or rather, XMLHttpRequest) is not a W3C standard.

Re:Not likely

[jp10558]

Well, true, but I'm not about to change from Opera to do something that still seems better done on my PC in Lotus Word Pro or Adobe InDesign depending on what I want to accomplish. If there is one thing that seems to me to be the absolutely worst suited to online delivery, it is wordprocessing.

Re:Not likely

[NutscrapeSucks]

And neither is the HTML editing component which was apparently used.

Pointing fingers at IE is sometimes appropriate, but in this case, this sort of web application is simply impossible without using IE-originated extentions.

Re:Not likely

[NutscrapeSucks]

Odd problem, because Word generally opens simple HTML documents directly just fine without much formatting loss. Maybe they are being too tricky and actually trying to generate a DOC instead of just sending HTML with the Word MIME type.

Re:Not likely

[AKAImBatman]

"Ajax" (or rather, XMLHttpRequest) is not a W3C standard.

Wanna bet?

Ok, so they're still in the early stages of knocking this stuff out. But it *is* being standardized by the W3C. Any browsers that want to remain compliant should get in gear and start implementing it.

Then again, the W3C loves to standardize everything, so I suppose it shouldn't come as any real surprise. :-)

Re:Not likely

[AKAImBatman]

Maybe they are being too tricky and actually trying to generate a DOC instead of just sending HTML with the Word MIME type.

They are trying to produce Word files rather than HTML documents. Trying to do what you suggest would create a support nightmare, especially across programs other than Office. As I said in my original post, they're most likely using POI to do the writing. The format converter is probably custom, though.

There are two things I feel bolster this position:

1. Writing a PDF currently gives a "java.io.IOException". So we know they're using Java. This makes POI a logical choice for Word documents.

2. Images don'r seem to save. Last time I used POI, this was an issue in their API. You could extract existing images, but you couldn't create new ones.

Re:Not likely

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

You can't remember FCKEditor? The name seems pretty memorable to me once you say it.

Re:Not likely

[Tablizer]

Apparently, spell checkers....are "obscure advanced features"

They are for us slashdot contributers :-)

Re:Not likely

[NutscrapeSucks]

Trying to do what you suggest would create a support nightmare, especially across programs other than Office.

You know if other word processors can't figure out how to open an HTML file named *.DOC, they're basically broken. It's not possible to even try to open a DOC file without sniffing the magic bits (because a ton of them are actually RTF).

And it's funny to talk about "support nightmares" when you're bitching that their solution is basically hosed. Feeding HTML4/CSS1 to Word/Excel is by far the most superior way that I've found to create simple "DOC" or "XLS" files from a web application. Let MS do the work so you don't have to.

Re:Not likely

[NutscrapeSucks]

> Then again, the W3C loves to standardize everything, so I suppose it shouldn't come as any real surprise

Actually it's a pleasant surprise to me, as the W3C has historically focused on hypertext documents and has done almost nothing to improve the state of the art of web applications.

We're talking about a feature introduced in 1999 that has almost universal support already. Maybe they can even get around to completing standardization of the form.* API (from Netscape 2.0) one of these days!

Re:Not likely

[eweaver]

You know its gonna be stupid when they aren't creative enough to come up with a name that doesn't include the programming language.

On top of that, it can't even load a file for me. And I do have Firefox, completely unlike its target market, who have used IE all their lives and under no circumstances are going to install some strange piece of software so they can use an unpromising-looking word processor.

A web-distributed app that can only access local documents? What are they thinking?

Re:Not likely

[Trumpetgod2k1]

Hey Steve, what's the name of that fuckin' cool ajax word processor??... oh... nevermind

Re:Not likely

[AKAImBatman]

And how are you going to support embedded images?

And it's funny to talk about "support nightmares" when you're bitching that their solution is basically hosed.

Trust me. I've supported some pretty wonky iterations of software. It's always a BAD IDEA to hack things like you're suggesting. Inevitably, someone's system is misconfigured, or the vendor releases a new version that works differently, or something. You're just asking for trouble.

As an example, I used to distribute a Java program in an executable JAR. As long as they had Java installed, a shortcut to the JAR should work fine, right?

Wrong.

It turns out that there's a popular program called PowerArchiver. PowerArchiver is a nasty little program that switches the default program for JAR files to itself. (Because everyone wants to extract JAR files, dontchaknow. /sarcasm) This required that I send these people an installer patch that would change the shortcut to force the program to run in Java.

I learned my lesson. Future revisions distributed an EXE file of my own design that would search the registry for a Java installation, and even download a new JVM for the user if they were out of date. Once the Java installation was found, the program would execute it directly on the installed program. This has worked extremely well, and has gained me several accolades from customers who love how smooth the new version installs and works.

So the take-away lesson is: Good software engineering requires that we always plan for the worst. Especially when we don't know what that "worst" might be.

Re:Not likely

[AKAImBatman]

Actually it's a pleasant surprise to me, as the W3C has historically focused on hypertext documents and has done almost nothing to improve the state of the art of web applications.

*cough* *sputter* *gag*

Hello? DOM? Document Object Model? The enter API that makes complex web applications possible?

We're talking about a feature introduced in 1999 that has almost universal support already.

Mozilla implemented it for Mozilla 1.0 and Netscape 7. Safari implemented it in OS X 10.3. Opera added support in version 8.0. Microsoft may have implemented it years ago, but the rest of the market hasn't wanted it standardized until recently. Ergo, it wasn't. Those of us who wanted that functionality used hidden iframes instead.

Maybe they can even get around to completing standardization of the form.* API (from Netscape 2.0) one of these days!

I supposed next you're going to demand NS4 layer support? It should go well with the "blink" tag support that I'm sure you're going to request. What are you thinking? The W3C would bust your kneecaps if they caught you using the form.* API!

Three words: Document. Object. Model. You're supposed to be grabbing everything through the DOM, not through Javascript. That's why Netscape's latest specifications for JavaScript 1.5 removed all those web apis. This brings it in line with the ECMA-262 specification. You are coding your Javascript to the ECMA-262 specification, right? Otherwise, you're just creating "legacy" coding problems for yourself that won't port to all current and future browsers.

For someone who thinks Netscape sucks, you sure are married to it. :-P

Re:Not likely

[NutscrapeSucks]

Blah blah, but it doesn't explain how trying to generate a binary OC file using 3rd party software is any better than using a well-supported interchange format like HTML.

Especially when we don't know what that "worst" might be.

We do know what "Worst" is. "Worst" is when your so-called Word file fails to open in Word.

Re:Not likely

[NutscrapeSucks]

Unlike Nutscrape Layers, the form.* API is universally supported by every browser made that even pretended to have Javascript support. I'm not talking about Javascript HTML APIs -- I'm talking about the stuff that everyone uses to manipulate form values that is only 50% standardized. And let's not even get into window.* -- it's only the proprietary-loving assholes who ever use that

And Blink has been standardized. See .sig :)

Re:Not likely

[AKAImBatman]

Unlike Nutscrape Layers, the form.* API is universally supported by every browser made that even pretended to have Javascript support.

For Netscape 4 compatbility. Don't expect it to remain in the future.

I'm not talking about Javascript HTML APIs -- I'm talking about the stuff that everyone uses to manipulate form values that is only 50% standardized.

The document.forms API *is* an HTML API that was part of Netscape's Client Side Scripting. You're not supposed to use it anymore. If you want a form, you're supposed to chose one of three options:

1. Use getElementsByTagName() to find the form by its name.
2. Place an id on it and find the form by getElementById.
3. Walk the tree until you find what you're looking for.

Of course, the form is probably not what you're interested in. What you really want are the form fields. You can use the same three options to find the fields. The resulting object will be exactly the same as if you had used document.forms[i].elements["name"].

In complex forms, most people don't even bother with these options anymore. Since the form is usually created in Javascript, the fields are placed in a datastructure ahead of time. Which means they can be referenced without trying to distinguish them from the rest of the DOM elements.

And let's not even get into window.* -- it's only the proprietary-loving assholes who ever use that

Heh. I agree with you there. The spec says you should be using HTMLFrameElement. So that's what we use. :-)

And Blink has been standardized. See .sig :)

Ok, you got me there. Although, I think the only reason it's defined is because the IETF specs for HTML defined it. According to the spec, "Conforming user agents may simply not blink the text. Note that not blinking the text is one technique to satisfy checkpoint 3.3 of WAI-UAAG." As a result, many browsers ignore the blink tag. Mozilla supports it though. (For whatever reason.) People seem to miss the fact that the blink tag was a joke. *sigh*

Re:Not likely

[AKAImBatman]

We do know what "Worst" is. "Worst" is when your so-called Word file fails to open in Word.

No, worst is when Word decides to open Internet Explorer, which decides the document is a Word file so it opens Word, which decides it's an HTML document so it opens Internet Explorer, which decides it's a Word document...

Re:Not likely

[s-twig]

HAHAHAHA "Wordpad" that's funny.

Not to pick but the UI is pretty ugly. It's attempts like this that give Open Source a bad name, not so much the attempt but the claims made. This sort of thing also makes people give Word a nice big hug.

I'm waiting for Sun to do something better.

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

My OS builds the system spell-checker into *all* textbox fields automatically. See, just now it informed me that "textbox" should be written as "text box". Eat it. OS X is now where Desktop Linux will be in ten years.

Re:Not likely

[NutscrapeSucks]

Which is great until you want to select something in a SELECT element, and then you realize that the W3C way only has about 50% of the universal API and is a lot more code than the document.forms way. These niggling details are exactly why the form API support is never going to be dropped from browsers, and eventually will be standardized in one way or another.

It's basically the same argumetn as XmlHttpRequest -- people build on browsers, not specs. You think Google checked with W3C before they started using it? Truth is nbody cares if it is codifies it or not, although it's nice if the committe would get off their asses and document existing practice now-and-again.

Don't expect it to remain in the future.

Maybe if browsers ever drop a widely used feature, I might consider that.

Re:Not likely

[NutscrapeSucks]

I dunno, I figure if Microsoft somehow breaks IE & Word on the same box, it will be about 15 minutes before you can go to their office building and buy their doorknobs the scrap value.

Besides, weren't you arguing about standards in the other post? I think you'd agree with me here and blame Word if it couldn't render W3C-standard HTML properly rather than advocating a proprietary undocumetned binary format.

Re:Not likely

[shutdown -p now]

Pointing fingers at IE is sometimes appropriate, but in this case, this sort of web application is simply impossible without using IE-originated extentions.

Not really. A rich text editing component can be written in cross-browser JavaScript with DOM. And if you want to interface with the server in the background, hidden frames provide a standard-compliant approach to do that.

Re:Not likely

[Jarlsberg]

What are you implying? I pronounced it aloud, and it sounded like this: filecheckeditor. It's not very memorable! ;P

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

You save to your local machine! No sentral server for storage!

Re:Not likely

[Imsdal]

ajaxWrite is a streamlined word processor, comparable to Microsoft Wordpad.

Parent is modded "funny", but in fact it's insightful. Sad, really...

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

DOC extension is not a proprietary Microsoft thing - there were other word processors that used that extension.
  So, opening a file with a .DOC extension should read a bit from the file in order to identify its real type (not to mention that Microsoft used the .DOC extension for several versions of the format - Office 97 and Office 2000 having different formats)

Re:Not likely

[bakreule]

The bright side is that his app supports the Microsoft DOC format. How well it supports it is an open question

Not very well. I got a NullPointerException upon loading a document that I've been working on....

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

You pronounced FCKEditor aloud and got filecheckeditor?

Wow. Just wow.

Anyway, most everyone else thinks it sounds like fuckeditor, which is very easy to remember, and something I unfortunately wish I had.

Re:Not likely

[bobdinkel]

Feeding HTML4/CSS1 to Word/Excel is by far the most superior way that I've found to create simple "DOC" or "XLS" files from a web application. Let MS do the work so you don't have to.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the whole point of ajaxWrite to allow users to create Word docs without having MS Word installed on their system? Your solution requires Word to do the work. If you've already got Word installed, why not just use Word?

Re:Not likely

[NutscrapeSucks]

Uh, yeah, you obviously haven't thought this through. Why would you be generating a "Word file" if the intent is not to have Word do the work at some point? What do you think people are trying to do -- open the DOC file in hex editor and stare at the gibberish?

Re:Not likely

[bobdinkel]

Why would you be generating a "Word file" if the intent is not to have Word do the work at some point?

Maybe, just maybe the point was for ajaxWrite to be a web-based word processor that offered MS Word Doc compatibility as a feature. If you can believe that (apparently, that's a big "if"), then it seems conceivable that this app could someday have a user that doesn't have access to Word, but still wants to create a document with DOC compatibility.

Or does staring at the DOC file in a hex editor seem more plausible?

Re:Not likely

[NutscrapeSucks]

Sounds like you completely backtracked on your original post. I don't blame you.

still some work to do.

[yagu]

Well, this guy may think he's replaced WORD(tm) but I was unable to:

• find the clippy help guy
• find the shifting winding twisty changing menus (think chevrons)
• get ajaxWrite to inexplicably put me in different viewing modes from which I could not find an escape
• randomly start numbering stuff because I indented

Until they get at least some of these features write, I'm forking over my $499.

Oh wait, did I just say that out loud?

All seriousness aside, one feature this really doesn't have (at least I couldn't find it) I absolutely must have is spell check. I'm kind of surprised, cuz it seems everyone is introducing some form of spell check instantiated in their latest ajax offerings (including other web word processors... e.g.,

• Writely (not currently taking new registrations, but soon!)
• Zohowriter

)

Re:still some work to do.

[truthsearch]

Personally I think it should be a little more... webish.

And can we get those icons in cornflower blue?

Re:still some work to do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Until they get at least some of these features write,...

Some things even a spell checker won't save you from.

Re:still some work to do.

[Roadmaster]

"Until they get at least some of these features write"

For you, the feature they'd need to get working is a grammar checker I guess :)

Re:still some work to do.

[cashman73]

Well, I'm not impressed. This thing crashed my Firefox window within a minute. All I did was open the document, look at the sample file it had in there, open the File:Save options to see what options I had, which crashed the program (and my entire Firefox application). And this being on a P4 3.8 GHz with something around the lines of 4 GB RAM.

So maybe somebody typing some letter to Grandma or something might be able to put up with this type of shoddy programming, but for mission critical stuff, you're better off sticking with something like Micro$oft Word (or even OpenOffice). Hell, Windows NotePad is better than this piece of junk!

Re:still some work to do.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

All seriousness aside, one feature this really doesn't have (at least I couldn't find it) I absolutely must have is spell check.

Normally I'm a big advocate of OS-wide services for things like spelling checkers, grammar checkers, translation, and the like. Having access to them in OS X has pretty much spoiled me. I don't want to teach the spellchecker on a website or built into one more application not to mark "SNMP" as a misspelled word. And since my browser uses the standard text handling APIs, I don't have to with an online word-processor.

If we really do move into the world of online, Web-based applications, however, what we really need is a way to integrate individual user preferences and services with one another seamlessly. Give it another 15 years of development and I think we'll be there (well except Microsoft they still be dragging their feet).

In summation I'd just like to say, "ha! ha! your spellchecker doesn't work everywhere!"

Re:still some work to do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely... I showed this already to my man here - you liked it, didn't you?

Re:still some work to do.

[Firehed]

I think "cuz" may have been a (most heinous) misspelling of "because" as well. Clearly both spell and grammar checks could help.

Not sure I like this..

[trazom28]

People, in my experience, don't necessarily want to be on the web to use a word processor/similar application. Takes the whole portability factor out of laptops as well. I don't see this being a popular option in the home market. Business market, possibly..

Re:Not sure I like this..

[MightyMartian]

Actually I would love to see something of the kind in GMail, even it's just a Notepad-like variant of the Rich Text mail composition option. I do quite a bit of writing from various locations, and if Google had any smarts they would do a Wordpad-style notepad feature. You don't need the thing to be an MSWord competitor, I think that's just silly, but something that could easily be exported into Open Document or Word document formats would be great.

Re:Not sure I like this..

[truthsearch]

That's funny, I think the exact opposite for the same reason. The business market is more than willing to fork over the cash for the desktop apps. Many working stiffs would be unhappy if they can't use a word processor during their morning train ride commute. Home users, however, are almost always connected to the internet and would gladly buy a computer without the price of office apps added.

Re:Not sure I like this..

[ADRA]

Maybe some day they'll release the sources and you can run your own version of the web service locally. Doesn't make much sense for individuals, but for a company with n hundreds/thousands of employess, it may save quite a few clams over office. Of course it'd have to competefavorably with other OSS / free offerings.

Re:Not sure I like this..

[CastrTroy]

You could just type an email, and save it in your drafts, email it to yourself, and then if you want it in word/openoffice, then just copy and paste.

Re:Not sure I like this..

[kthejoker]

Isn't this the reason they bought Writely?

Speechless.

[dada21]

I always have something to say but loading up this app left me speechless. For years I've been researching a better interface to remote applications. In the BBS days we had ASCII and then ANSI and then a variety of ANSI knockoffs which all sucked. Then RipTerm came along and I thought it was amazing, until the net came by and destroyed all that hard work (and no more cool ANSI animated files).

Yet the web has always been lacking in the interface. This application is an amazing glimpse of things to come.

The bigger news is what can Microsoft do to control the desktop now? A basic computer running Firefox with the most limited operating system could likely dominate when AJAX applications start being released. Very scary for those in the IT field if someone finds a way to encapsulate a very solid browser into a very solid mini-OS. Why worry about the end user when everything runs on the server?

Re:Speechless.

[0racle]

The bigger news is what can Microsoft do to control the desktop now?
Offer a better product. Oh wait, they already got that covered.

Re:Speechless.

[balazsa]

Eventually Scott McNeally & Co. got right: The network is the computer.

Re:Speechless.

[AKAImBatman]

Yet the web has always been lacking in the interface. This application is an amazing glimpse of things to come.

Sorry dada, but you need to get out more.

Re:Speechless.

[Kalak451]

I was thinking the same thing, then I realized its basicaly a big version of RTE

Re:Speechless.

[LnxAddct]

What ajaxWrite did is nothing more than most blogging applications do anymore when writing posts. ajaxWrite barely did anything, seriously. For something impressive, check out the open source FCKEditor. I have no connection with the project, but it's always the most impressive editor to me.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Speechless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet the web has always been lacking in the interface. This application is an amazing glimpse of things to come.

It's *extremely* slow to launch.

"Your browser has not been tested. Upgrade/Launch Anyway?"

"Your browser is not supported. Please download Mozilla Firefox."

Um, yeah, an abso-@#$%-ingly amazing glimpse of things to come.

Re:Speechless.

[skarphace]

A basic computer running Firefox with the most limited operating system could likely dominate when AJAX applications start being released. Very scary for those in the IT field if someone finds a way to encapsulate a very solid browser into a very solid mini-OS. Why worry about the end user when everything runs on the server?

Oh yay.. let's all go back to the mainframe days. Those times were great. You know... the single point of failure... the times when someone ran a resource hog and everyone was screwed... the times when annoying UNIX operators were still there in dark rooms hacking away at an ugly console.

Everyone worked hard to get away from those places. Please let's not go back to it. Slim clients suck.

The only benifit this has over mainframe style computing is that this can be highly distributed and accessed from pretty much anywhere. Still not worth it in my opinion.

Re:Speechless.

[Sylver Dragon]

The mainfame idea isn't all bad, it just has to be used correctly. Many business users don't need a PC, they run Word, Excel, and Outlook and occasionally they will browse the web. Why do these people need a full blown PC? The problem is, when mainframes were big everyone was on it, even those people who should not be on one. A good example is a software developer. Eventually, that developer is going to hit complie, and if he is on a mainframe, the rest of the users get screwed. For this type of user you would want to have a full PC. The problem is, most places seem to be of an either/or mentality, when a well thought out combination of the two might be much better.
Of course, when in doubt give everyone a PC, they aren't expensive enough anymore to really care about.

Re:Speechless.

[susano_otter]

Oh yay.. let's all go back to the mainframe days. Those times were great. You know... the single point of failure... the times when someone ran a resource hog and everyone was screwed... the times when annoying UNIX operators were still there in dark rooms hacking away at an ugly console.

Totally! Not only have none of these problems ever been solved, but it's obvious that these problems will never be solved!

I mean, unless computers get a lot smaller, cheaper, and more efficient, we'll never be able to overcome the single point of failure problem, because we won't be able to afford the extra space, power, and funding requirements for multiple redundant servers!

And it's a safe bet that nobody has any idea at all how to manage potential resource hogs on a shared system! Not only that, but it's a safe bet that nobody will ever have any idea at all how to manage resource hogging! We've reached the outer limits of that particular field for sure!

Finally, it's clear that consoles and work areas haven't changed at all since the first mainframes were developed, and that these things won't ever change at all in the future! Again, we're at our wit's end when it comes to user interfaces and operating environments!

Perhaps you should give the AjaxWrite people a call, so you can laugh your ass off at their stupid and unworkable solutions to the impossible problems you have so wisely identified.

Re:Speechless.

[che.kai-jei]

eyeOS.

http://superjustin.com/?p=98/

and wadget OS
http://www.theartofennui.com/60/wadgetos/

Man, I dunno.

[Anonymous Coward]

My web browsers crash all the time and I'm always closing the windows by accident. And I'm supposed to use this as a host for my *word processor*? Is this really a good idea? Unless all storage is on the server and it has a VERY smart autosaving strategy, I don't really see this as being the tiniest bit useful.

Re:Man, I dunno.

[mOOzilla]

And dont forget about all those holes http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/23/180 255&from=rss Can you imagine what would happen if all your letters fell through them!!

Re:Man, I dunno.

[osoese]

"What if there was alternative for Microsoft Word that would install and open in 6 seconds" -Initially Ummm...didn't work for me. It hung on the initial open screen with a logo. I was all pumped up to see a better than Microsoft Web app, especially because of all the "I cannot copy from Word without all this extra gibberish appearing" comments about most Web Based editors (any web developer has been there at least once). OK, so the slashdot slowed down the server I guess, or my Firefox isn't up to date and there is no check, but it still didn't load a second time. -Couple minutes have gone by lets write a slashdot post I hope you work Ajax Write, but I have a feeling from viewing the other comments that this one is a little bit on the hype lenient side of things. -A few more minutes have gone by We all want to compete with Microsoft, but there's a reason that a few of the founders are on the rich list. Their stuff works well enough to impress the uneducated and the educated alike. Rolling out something that crashes on the first check doesn't help the scenario either. I don't know the exact statistic, but I'm sure its less than a 50% return rate for a non-working website. -another minute...while typing on post--I notice a strange thing...IT LOADED! I type some stuff, open word make a crazy formatted speech and paste it in. It works as planned. Looks nice, and seems quick enough. It looks as though it did in word. My network wouldn't let me save it anywhere...that's not AjaxWrites fault, just the network Gestapo. One last test...lets paste it in another online editor and see if there is formatting. Didn't seem to break the editor, but I would have to test this further. Good idea, looks ok at first glance. This Ajax Write may be something of note. I might use it sometime when I am away from my laptop. especially since the files can be saved and opened as word. --ok now I need to paste this posting into Word to spellcheck it before submitting...

Re:Man, I dunno.

[Anonymous Coward]

Two Words: Paragraph Breaks.

Thank you.

Re:Man, I dunno.

[StikyPad]

I swear to God, I was 90% done with my paper and then my sister picked up the phone.

Re:Man, I dunno.

[chill]

You need the Session Saver extension for Firefox. I got sick and tired of listening to my wife whine "Where did it all go now? I just closed the tab!" No...you closed the application.

Now, she just re-opens Firefox and it is all back -- half completed forms and all.

  -Charles

Re:Man, I dunno.

[Tim Browse]

Give him a break - he was just simulating what happens when you load a Word doc into ajaxWrite. :-)

Re:Man, I dunno.

[Garak]

Well thats kinda the point of it being ajax... Ever use gmail? notice the autosave? thats ajax at work. You can use ajax so that every keystroke gets sent to the server and stored in an SQL database, but thats alittle wasteful of bandwidth.

I've had more problems losing data in word than online. My servers have various levels of redundancy, they are running in a datacentre with redundant power and with high physical security. Data loss would require two harddrives to fail at once or if it information hasn't been written to disk yet, two servers to lose poswer at the same time.

Re:Man, I dunno.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather he give me a break. A paragraph break, that is...

Re:Man, I dunno.

[lysergic.acid]

My computer crashes all the time, and I'm always kicking it on accident. And I'm supposed to use this thing for work? Is this really a good idea?

I think your problem EBKAC.

Re:Man, I dunno.

[Jarlsberg]

Yeah, well I tried it for a couple of minutes. I opened a new document, wrote some simple test lines and pushed save. After 20 seconds I got an error message saying something about an Conversion error. I was not able to save the document.

It's a good start, I guess, but the app needs a lot of tweaking. Also, releasing a new app every week seems extremely optimistic, unless you got a *huge* team of coders and major resources to draw from.

'compete'

[user24]

given that microsoft doesn't even seem to think that openoffice is a competitor, I highly doubt that MS will see this as a threat. (of course that's not to say it won't actually be a threat)

Re:'compete'

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a very important report due this afternoon and I can't access my word processor because it has been slashdotted.

Re:'compete'

[Sylver Dragon]

No, it's not a threat, MS is comming out with server based versions of Office 12 (or whatever they call the next release). From what I've heard about the betas (one of our guys is betaing), the server based versions are damn close to the client based versions.

The Power of the Web in your Hand!

[jfengel]

"Click on the ajaxWrite icon to launch an MS Word-compatible word processor in seconds".

Many seconds. Many, many seconds.

"Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at 207.67.194.7."

I want a web-based word processor so that my letter to Mom can get slashdotted?

Re:The Power of the Web in your Hand!

[Sporkinum]

Exactly.. it me be ok for some things, but given the vagaries of the net, you might not be able to rely on it to edit a file. I have the same problem at work with Office delivered VIA Citrix. It will lock up in the middle of editing, or I won't be able to lauch the application. I fixed that problem by installing Open Office.

Re:The Power of the Web in your Hand!

[harryk]

Bullets are lacking in bullet options, the numbered bullets are ONLY numbers, ie it cannot be changed to Roman Numerals, nor can it be alphabetic.

text positioning works well enough (left, center, right, block) ...

but I could not get it to save, at all. I tried multiple formats, but without success. It could be a load issue. Also, it was excessively slow to initially load. Is AJAX a design that works better (quicker?) on LANs as opposed to WANs?

harryk

Re:The Power of the Web in your Hand!

[AKAImBatman]

but I could not get it to save, at all.

I'm guessing that's because their server is Slashdotted. The only way to convert a file from HTML is to upload it to the server, convert it, then send it back to the client. If the server is a little busy at the moment... well...

Me thinks he needs to buy time on the Sun Grid Engine.

Re:The Power of the Web in your Hand!

[ArsenneLupin]

Many seconds. Many, many seconds.

Oh, the eternal wonders of the slashdot effect!

Slashdot multiplies the seconds just like our Lord multiplied the fish and bread.

Re:The Power of the Web in your Hand!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, at least Microsoft Word can't be slashdotted, or starts to run worse because people all over the world choose to run it at the same time.

Re:The Power of the Web in your Hand!

[DaFallus]

"Click on the ajaxWrite icon to launch an MS Word-compatible word processor in seconds".

Many seconds. Many, many seconds.

You insensitive clod! Of course it takes forever to load. What exactly did you think they meant by MS Word-compatible?

Re:The Power of the Web in your Hand!

[Anonymous Coward]

From your title, I envisioned pornography. Go figure.

Re:The Power of the Web in your Hand!

[melonman]

I'm guessing that's because their server is Slashdotted.

I'm sure you're right, but isn't that the whole point? The local apps on my laptop don't get slashdotted. I don't have to pay thousands of dollars a month for a guaranteed "finish typing my document" time of less than four hours. Running applications that only produce local results over a WAN just introduces another point of failure that is totally outside the individual's or organisation's control.

I'm all for web applications - I spend a lot of my time working on them - but the only make sense if they use the Internet to provide functionality that cannot be provided locally. Remote backups might be one example with WPs, but, even then, I'd tend to think that using local code to send the backups somewhere safe was a saner way to go.

Quick review...

[carsonc]

Quick review... Problems:
1. spellchecker isn't working yet (there, but grayed out) ...making it useless
2. I will let you close the window and loose you work without a warning. That's a big minus in my books.
3. And it's not handling the load from /. very well, it's really slowing down.
Other that that it looks okay. Like most of the web mail apps from Yahoo and Google. Expect that I like the drop down menus, very intuitive and easy to navigate if you use regular word possessors. They will need to add online storage to make it really useful.

Re:Quick review...

[op12]

Sounds like Writely resolves all your gripes.

Re:Quick review...

[heatdeath]

Quick review... Problems:

I'd like to add...parses and displays .doc files way worse than any other Word alternative I've ever seen. They should have just gone with their own document format, unless they plan on really improving their rendering system.

Re:Quick review...

[JavaRob]

2. I will let you close the window and loose you work without a warning. That's a big minus in my books .
[...] Expect that I like the drop down menus
[...]regular word possessors

Heh; I'm afraid a spellchecker isn't going to help you much... :-)

Seriously, though, this app isn't at all ready for primetime. It's not just the spellchecker or the slashdotting; I can't use most of my fonts or most font sizes, the Word import isn't up to scratch, I can't imagine it can handle auto-save, or tables of contents, or complex headers/footers, etc. etc.. I actually use those kinds of features in Open Office... it's not all that "advanced" to need to print out a chapter of a book (with page numbering starting non-zero, unusual margins, etc.).

The Firefox requirement will also rule it out for many people (though that's okay with many of *us*, it probably isn't for much of the general public). If they want a free, mostly MS-compatible word processor they'll do a lot better with OpenOffice.

Re:Quick review...

[McFadden]

4. Alignment buttons don't work. The left-align button remains indented whatever other button you press.

Please stop slashdotting my MS-Word!

[TobyWong]

Pretty please?

Really

[lebski]

I just don't see how a web app using AJAX is going to compare to MS Word. Let's be honest AJAX techniques hardly compete with traditional development languages and MS have a 15 (or so) year advantage. I'm sure you can make something nice, maybe even something useful, but not something to rival Microsoft's dominance. Oh and it's not like this is the first web app to try this...

Re:Really

[fireboy1919]

Spoken like a non-developer.

AJAX techniques hardly compete with traditional development languages

AJAX is for communication. It's not a development language. You still use traditional development languages on the server side. That's the point: thanks to AJAX we can do that and just use the browser as a GUI.

But lets assume that you meant "web applications can hardly compete with desktop applications."

Doesn't it seem amazing to you that with so very little manpower (by comparison to the traditional approach), people have been able to make such apps at all? It seems clear to me that such development techniques rival, and might be superior to the traditional approaches to GUI development.

MS have a 15 (or so) year advantage ...the pinnacle of which is their webbrowser. Making a GUI is arguably the hardest part of these kind of apps. Thanks to the VERY developer friendly languages associated with web development, GUI development is suddenly much, much easier. Its also more bug-free, as the webbrowsers have many, many more hours spent in bugfixes than probably any other GUI toolkit. The only real limitation is that its extremely difficult to create your own kinds of form widgets, but that difficulty is rapidly vanishing.

Re:Really

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Total, utter, unadultered bullshit. The GUI capabilities of ANY browser are completely insignificant compared to native code. Hell, even Java byte code. Forms support is PATHETIC. Flow layouts are non-existent.

It's all marketing, just like the late 90's. Some useless cocksuckers with too much free capital will pour millions into any bunch of cunts with an "aJAaKS!" application and the whole gory fucking debacle will start all over again.

Kill me now.

Re:Really

[lebski]

Actually I am a developer. I just never know how to describe AJAX (I thought technique was quite suitable). So perhaps I should have said HTML based GUI's cannot compete with *desktop applications* but I think you knew what I meant. I'm almost totally convinced that Web-Apps will eventually rival their desktop counterparts; but with AJAX and HTML? I don't think so. Ajax is a hacked together solution to a problem that runs much deaper - HTML just isn't good enough for these kind of application. It was never meant to be; every further step we take based on HTML makes this more and more apparent.

...the pinnacle of which is their webbrowser Your kidding me right? GUI development is much easier? Well yes if your developing a webpage but an application? Please!

Re:Really

[shutdown -p now]

Doesn't it seem amazing to you that with so very little manpower (by comparison to the traditional approach), people have been able to make such apps at all? It seems clear to me that such development techniques rival, and might be superior to the traditional approaches to GUI development.

As anyone who had any experience with this Ajax stuff (and using HTML DOM for user interfaces in general) knows, it is much more tedious to write an web application with feature set comparable to your average desktop one. Don't be mistaken, the expressive power of web UIs is still light years behind modern desktop UI toolkits such as Qt and Gtk, and even WinForms and Tk.

Re:Really

[Jarlsberg]

Doesn't it seem amazing to you that with so very little manpower (by comparison to the traditional approach), people have been able to make such apps at all? It seems clear to me that such development techniques rival, and might be superior to the traditional approaches to GUI development.

But you don't need to fiddle with the GUI when developing web apps - you're just using the built in stuff that the browser developers have made. You're not working with the GUI at all.

Take this app. What kind of GUI does it depend on? There's the window, but that's just a simple browser window. There's the dialogs, but those are *very* basic javascript dialog windows. The print option opens the printer window for your current OS, again using settings from the browser. There is no new approach to GUI development here.

died already?

[timelady]

dammit people please let me poke something before its slashdotted;) server won't play nicely. get to ajaxwrite page, but actual application server is too busy.....

Re:died already?

[digitalgiblet]

Yeah, 23 comments in /. so far and I'm already getting a "connection refused" message. Glad I don't have a report due today that I must work on using this service...

Granted they can scale up their servers to handle the load, but shouldn't they have done that BEFORE announcing to the world how they are going to kick Microsoft's butt??

UPDATE: I just got in. It looks impressive, but it is very slow. Kind of a dancing bear scenario. Will be interesting to see where they go with it and how they intend to make money with it.

Yeah, great compatability guys ...

[trigonalmayhem]

These programs look and operate much like their traditional software cousins, but are cross-platform, loaded dynamically, and are available to users at no charge.

and only work with firefox 1.5+

Re:Yeah, great compatability guys ...

[advocate_one]

it's "Cross-Platform"... not "Cross-Browser"... subtle difference... mind you if it were cross-platform AND browser agnostic, then I'd be happier...

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

"These programs look and operate much like their traditional software cousins, but are cross-platform, loaded dynamically, and are available to users at no charge"

It's cross platform, But it requires firefox? That's bullshit. I wouldn't even consider it because of that. It might as well say it runs on the "firefox" platform.

It didn't work for me

[twfry]

Apparently IE is not supported at all, any version of it. Doesn't that strike people as an unnecessary limitation?

Re:It didn't work for me

[grunfeld]

Doesn't work in Opera

Re:It didn't work for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, It looks like it is integrated with Firefox.... The formatting tools are in the firefox toolbar, very neat!

Sounds like an IE problem... try using firefox instead!

Re:It didn't work for me

[neurojab]

>Apparently IE is not supported at all, any version of it. Doesn't that strike people as an unnecessary limitation?

Not really. All reasonably complex software has a pre-requisite of some sort. Having a freely available, cross-platform, open source prerequisite (that is arguably the best product inits niche) is the best kind of prerequisite IMO.

Why not just download FireFox?

Re:It didn't work for me

[HavokDevNull]

I think you meant "a necessary security measure?"

Could not help myself this is /. ya know.

Re:It didn't work for me

[Abstract_Me]

Unless im mistaken it only works in browsers that support XUL... and for good reason... because its written using XUL. Seems to make sense to me.

Re:It didn't work for me

[HogGeek]

It has problems in FF 1.5.01 on Mac OS X 10.4.5

While the app loaded, trying to use a menu item (move the mouse down to a choice) jumped to the "file" menu. So all I can do is open/close/save as...

While I like the concept, the implementation leaves a lot to be desired...

Re:It didn't work for me

[Professor_UNIX]

Why not just build a word processor into a Firefox extension if you're going to require it? Why not just write the word processor using Java and remove the requirement to be online at all?

Re:It didn't work for me

[Sylver Dragon]

Why not just download OpenOffice?

Re:It didn't work for me

[Anonymous Coward]

because, unlike firefox, openoffice sucks

Re:It didn't work for me

[neurojab]

>Why not just build a word processor into a Firefox extension if you're going to require it? Why not just write the word processor using Java and remove the requirement to be online at all?

Actually, building this as a Firefox extension is a very good idea. That would presumably offer offline capability as well as online... as long as the extension is easy to install and update, it should work. I like it! Presumably there's a business reason for not doing that however. Maybe they need revenue from banner ads?

Re:It didn't work for me

[AndreiK]

If you're at a computer that doesn't have firefox, or any other required browser (as many don't), and if you have the necessary permissions to install firefox, you have the permissions to install any office suite as well.

Re:It didn't work for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally not true.
Firefox doesn't *need* to be installed to be used. You can just copy and paste the folder to any directory (ie, the Desktop), and it will run fine. (Try it out on a computer w/o Firefox, o/t it will use the settings from your installed copy of FF).

It just runs much better when it is installed.

Re:It didn't work for me

[AndreiK]

Same point then, I'm sure one of the office applications can just be run from a flash drive, if necessary. I personally use MSOffice, so I can't comment, but if I'm wrong, tell me.

Re:It didn't work for me

[Weedlekin]

Banner ads can be run without having to host one's application on a web page.

Re:It didn't work for me

[SpartacusJones]

As innovative as a browser based word app may be, to restrict its use to only about 11% of internet users is shooting itself in the foot.

I use Opera myself, and there should really be no reason it wouldn't (couldn't) work in Opera. If this is going to be sucessful it will HAVE to work in IE, otherwise hardly anyone will take notice outside the sort of people who read slashdot.

No thanks... we've got our fingers in our ears....

[lzcd]

Love that IE compatibility.

The only thing ajaxwrite will be good for

[winkydink]

is raising VC money because it has "ajax" in the name.

Without rehashing everything that's been said so far abotu the comparison to MS Word, let's just say, it has a long, long way to go before it's gogin to put any serious dent in the MS Office revenu stream.

Re:The only thing ajaxwrite will be good for

[absinthminded64]

You forgot. . .

  - Randomly collecting users' confidential documents and trade secrets
  - Providing BIG GOVERNMENT with the aforementioned documents.

Re:The only thing ajaxwrite will be good for

[Locke2005]

If that's true, then the VCs must be jumping all over this product!

Re:The only thing ajaxwrite will be good for

[Strudelkugel]

is raising VC money because it has "ajax" in the name

Maybe, but can anyone point to a single product / company Robertson has had that was profitable?

Re:The only thing ajaxwrite will be good for

[winkydink]

I'll bet they were all profitable to Robertson.

Re:The only thing ajaxwrite will be good for

[bwy]

is raising VC money because it has "ajax" in the name.

Much in the same way back in the late 90's any business plan out there could get VC money just because it was an "Internet" business. Someone could be selling toe jam but if they were doing it via the net, they'd get 20 million from someone. (after all, who doesn't want to buy iToeJam?)

Personally I'm kinda getting sick of all this ajax spin. As a software developer I will run like hell the first time someone asks me to do maintenance on a large ajax app- because you just know it is going to be a mess that can only be understood by the dude who wrote it. So much for modern languages like Java and C#... the new "big thing" is to write up a mother load of javascript, cross-browser checks, and server side code.

We delivered a rich client to our customers years ago using WebStart. They loved it and the developers could actually maintain it and leverage code already written. Go figure.

Always online for my word processor?

[RunFatBoy.net]

I'm not sure that a full-fledged word processor "begs" to be an online app. Do I really want to risk having to have a net connection if I am going to get shit done?

I've been in hotels with crappy net connections. It's 4am, and I can't reach my word processor, now what?

Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ -- Exercise, web 2.0 style.

Re:Always online for my word processor?

[WankersRevenge]

Worse yet, what if you drop connectivity half way through your writing session ... you're stuck with your writing on the page with no way to save (unless this baby saves every single minute or you can copy it to, er, Word).

Re:Always online for my word processor?

[CAPSLOCK2000]

Do what most people do, got to bed.

Re:Always online for my word processor?

[GreyWolf3000]

It's 4am, and I can't reach my word processor, now what?

Time to get a life?

Re:Always online for my word processor?

[Tei]

install the word processor as a firefox extension?...

maybe even install the standandalone version xulrunner based...

On a positive note...

[temojen]

Apparently it lets you save to your HDD, and I need to know how to do that for annother application. I'm checking it out now...

Re:On a positive note...

[AusIV]

For a web application that's fairly simple. It just sends headers of whatever file type you're trying to save it as, generates the file on the server end, then uploads it to the user. Nothing particularly impressive on that end.

Re:On a positive note...

[Anonymous Coward]

check out tiddlywiki. It has save to HD feature using javascript.

except...

[J05H]

that you need reliable Net access to use any of these "apps". I've got Google's personalized start page set up, and if there are any network issues I end up with a lot "temporarily unavailable" warnings. Not the greatest thing when you really need to finish that paper. If there was a way to write then upload it would provide more usability.

Josh

Re:except...

[Anonymous Coward]

Josh,

Those "temporarily unavailable" messages have nothing to do with the quality of your Internet connection, and everything to do with Google's servers being maxed.

I've got full DS3 to the net, and still several times a day, my gmail and news items won't load.

bmac

This is why...

[babbling]

This is one reason why web-based applications might not be such a good idea:

The connection was refused when attempting to contact 207.67.194.7.

I'm sure many other people can come up with other reasons, such as error 500...

Re:This is why...

[AnonymousPrick]

I'm sure many other people can come up with other reasons, such as error 500...

Yeah, if I try to access my document and I get "Nothing to see here. Move along.", it would really destroy what little self-esteem I have left.

JS

[Anonymous Coward]

More than beeing AJAX this relies on Javascript. Anyone can write any heavy hitting JS aplication. The question is, is it worth it? Time will tell i guess...

Re:JS

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think the J in "AJAX" is for?

safari not supported either...

[sxtxixtxcxh]

i finally got through to the server, but it seems they're only letting you run it if you have the latest firefox...

Wow - they are Already Competing !

[bushboy]

I just tried it and it crashed!

That's a great first start to compete with Word.

Now all we need is an animated paper clip which says :-

"You seem to be writing a letter, would you like to :-

a. Punch your monitor
b. Scream
c. Smile a crazy smile and run around the office, naked and screaming"

Re:Wow - they are Already Competing !

[Anonymous Coward]

d. CowboyNeal
e. Profit!

Re:Wow - they are Already Competing !

[Anonymous Coward]

And what do you get when you try to save a document ? A Word document to download !

Dispatch Warlock and Ajax

[Alioth]

When I learn a new language or technology, I like to start out with a couple of small well defined projects in which I can do the entire thing by hand - no fancy code generators or other IDE help, so I can understand truly what goes on underneath. I find it really helps. I've done it for C. I've written code using raw Xlib rather than toolkits when learning about X. I've written code using the Win32 API when learning about Windows.

Of course I decided to do the same with AJAX - use no fancy tools and code something small but useful completely by hand to understand what goes on. I wrote an application monitoring web app for our distributed app at work to give a nice graphical display and enquiries. It works well enough.

However, I could never shake the feeling that AJAX was what the RAF calls 'graunching' - forcing several components together that don't really fit properly. Writing a GUI in a web browser just felt awkward and wrong. Also, you had to be very careful how you did things especially if you have 30-odd info panels on your browser window - otherwise it's breathtakingly slow. Of course, an AJAX framework would have these (very necessary) optimisations - but AJAX really does seem incredibly inelegant.

Additionally, the X in AJAX doesn't really belong - if you run a protocol analyzer, you'll find XMLHTTPRequest doesn't actually send XML at all unless you explicitly send some XML. In fact it sends any plain text you pass it, and receives plain text back quite happily. But I suppose if it was called AJA it wouldn't be very buzzword compliant.

Re:Dispatch Warlock and Ajax

[Mock]

Try http://www.nextapp.com/platform/echo2/echo/
It fits everything together well, and you don't have to write a single line of HTML or javascript.
If you can write a swing application, you can write an echo2 application.

Also, XMLHTTPRequest is just that, a request. What gets sent back is up to the server.
The difference is that it doesn't cause an entire page refresh in the browser itself.

Re:Dispatch Warlock and Ajax

[boldtbanan]

The XML is received from the server with an XMLHttpRequest. Granted, the server has to be feeding properly typed XML (header should specify xml explicitly). You get raw text back as well just in case the headers weren't specified properly so you can handls that situation, rather than be left with nothing.

Besides, AJAX is a methodology for creating dynamic content. You're free to come up with your own methodology that doesn't use XML to transmit/receive data and call it AJA, and people who are not using XML for some part of the process aren't actually implementing AJAX in the first place.

The reason it feels awkward creating an AJAX solution has to do with the status of Javascript as a programming language. Sure there's a core structure to it that all browsers implement consistently, but lots of things, including XMLHttpRequest and xml processing, are done differently by every browser, requiring all sorts of custom checks. You can deal with this by creating your own object which encapsulates the behaviors you need (javascript is actually really good at this), but it's lutzy and time consuming until you create a library of objects that you're used to.

Javascript's inability to play well across different browsers isn't any different than C or C++. You can't compile a C program for a Windows box and then run it on a Mac. You have to compile it differently for each architecture. The difference here is that, in theory, javascript is supposed to run on everything in the same way. Until that happens (really until 5-10 years after that happens so the number of incompatible browsers becomes a tiny fraction of the market), AJAX will feel clutzy to develop in without first creating (or obtaining) some non-standard framework to hide the handling of the inconsistancies.

That's why they pay Web Developers the big money....oh wait. D'oh!

Re:Dispatch Warlock and Ajax

[Meostro]

Additionally, the X in AJAX doesn't really belong - if you run a protocol analyzer, you'll find XMLHTTPRequest doesn't actually send XML at all unless you explicitly send some XML.

That's because the XML DOM parsers in current-version browsers are dirt-slow, it takes way too long to parse proper XML and you don't get that fancy Web 2.0 responds-like-an-application feel from your app while it waits for your file to finish parsing.

Best practices dictate using delimited text if you have really simple content, or use JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) instead, as it returns pre-parsed data, and you can just eval() the string to get an actual JS object to work with.

Re:Dispatch Warlock and Ajax

[Alioth]

When I talk about the 'graunchiness' of AJAX, I'm not talking particularly about whether it is cross platform or not - it's just the whole feel of writing a GUI in what is still very much a document browser. It just feels like it was made for showing static documents, not windows, dynamic text and buttons (even if it actually does these things). Writing a gui in the browser just doesn't feel right and in my admittedly limited experience so far, it seems to take a level of fastidiousness that not even raw Xlib or Win32 requires.

Re:Dispatch Warlock and Ajax

[Itchy Rich]

Additionally, the X in AJAX doesn't really belong - if you run a protocol analyzer, you'll find XMLHTTPRequest doesn't actually send XML at all unless you explicitly send some XML. In fact it sends any plain text you pass it, and receives plain text back quite happily. But I suppose if it was called AJA it wouldn't be very buzzword compliant.

The "responseXML" property returns you a fully-parsed XML Document object. As far as I know this is the only way to get cross-browser XML support in Javascript without writing the parser yourself. I think that warrants an X in an acronym.

One Word.

[agent dero]

Undo

Oh, and how about supporting some browsers that have passed the Acid2 tests and are standards compliant....you know, Opera (9), Safari, Konqueror...

Re:One Word.

[AKAImBatman]

Undo

See that arrow on the toolbar that circles around toward the left? That's Undo. I think it's also in the edit menu, but the app seems to be broken (read: Slashdotted) at the moment.

Oh, and how about supporting some browsers that have passed the Acid2 tests and are standards compliant....you know, Opera (9), Safari, Konqueror...

Acid2 doesn't matter in this case, for the same reason why Opera and KHTML won't be supported: This is a XUL application. The upside to using XUL is that Robertson might have spent all of last week developing it by himself, and you'd never know. XUL makes the application look like a real Windows/Linux/Mac app. The downside is that it's a Mozilla-specific language intended to make it easy to develop applications on the Mozilla platform. Mozilla is trying to get it standardized, but I don't know how much that will help as long as the XPCOM library remains Mozilla specific.

Hmm, save doesn't quite work

[pavera]

I tried to save the document I wrote, and when I opened it on my local machine it was empty...
might be because of slashdotting...

Re:Hmm, save doesn't quite work

[flynt]

The future is now!

What is it with this Robertson guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like Robertson is bent on taking the shortest way to "beat" microsoft, never quite paying attention to the details. Ah, I recall the optimistic PR upon Lindows' arrival, promissing great Windows software support on Linux - that to anyone with basic Linux experience seemed strange to say the least.

Sure enough, Lindows or Linspire didn't become the Next Big Thing(tm), so I guess Michael is trying another shortcut - this time using Microsoft's own rich text component to beat Words!
Sigh...

Re:What is it with this Robertson guy?

[knewter]

Yeah, so it doesn't run on IE = not using MS's rich text component. You didn't RTFA. You didn't TTFS (Try the software?). You didn't RTFComments. You just displayed your stupidity without request.

Re:What is it with this Robertson guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't TTFS yet because it didnt work (on FF 1.5), looks like some server error, dunno. Still, doesn't change my point about Robertson.

Re:What is it with this Robertson guy?

[AKAImBatman]

He is effectively correct. Microsoft came up with the Rich Text Editing component, and Mozilla added (mostly) compatible support. The only thing he is using that didn't originate at Microsoft is XUL for the layout instead of HTML. Of course, that means that he's going to screw himself out of a lot of cusomters that prefers Opera, Safari, Konqueror, or (Lord help us) Internet Explorer.

Wow, every week??

[moochfish]

Every week we will launch a new sophisticated program on Wednesday at 12:00 PST

Wow. I wonder how many other applications have been under development and for how many months? Most other companies doing similar things so far have had enough trouble maintaining ONE AJAX application and polishing it. How do they intend to launch several and make them all great? Sounds a tiny bit overzealous to me.

Definitely Microsoft quality

[Bogtha]

I knew I was dealing with Microsoft-quality software when I tried to open the screenshot in a new tab, only to be told off for not enabling Javascript, despite having it switched on. You'd think people building a word processor in Javascript would know better.

For all you newbie web developers out there - assuming that somebody who follows a link without executing the onclick handler has Javascript disabled is wrong.

In my case, I right-clicked and hit 't' to open in a new tab. This resulted in a page opening in a new tab telling me to enable Javascript. This is not what I wanted. Then I tried holding down Ctrl and clicking the link. This resulted in a new window with the screenshot in and a new tab telling me to enable Javascript. This is not what I wanted twice over.

When I finally got what I wanted (open a blank tab, open the history sidebar, select the address of the popup window), I realised something. There was absolutely no need whatsoever to have this pop up in a new window. It's one of those annoying firms that likes popping things up for no good reason. In my experience, organisations that do things like that have incredibly annoying websites run by PHBs who don't have a clue what they are doing. If the rest of their code is like that, consider me underwhelmed.

Re:Definitely Microsoft quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Btw, in firefox you can middle-click to open links in new tabs. You may have to disable "Use autoscrolling" in the preferences first, though.

Re:Definitely Microsoft quality

[Bogtha]

Btw, in firefox you can middle-click to open links in new tabs.

I have that configured to open links in a new window (on purpose). If I recall correctly though, that also breaks when faced with code such as this.

Re:Definitely Microsoft quality

[Tim C]

As far as I am aware, the only way to correctly fire a javascript: link or onclick handler in Firefox is to left-click it. Nothing else I've ever tried has worked, which is a complete pain in the arse when you really *don't* want the damn thing to open a popup or - worse - the javascript does a form submission or similar, but you really wanted it in a new tab.

That's not so much this company's fault, as it is the fault of the firefox team. What's the point of giving users an easy way to open links in a new tab, then only implementing partial functionality?

Re:Definitely Microsoft quality

[fishbowl]

I wish I had an option in Firefox to open links not merely in a new window, but in a completely new browser process. I have things I'd like to remain open even if a browser process crashes, and the only way I can do that is by starting another instance of Firefox. It doesn't crash often, but when it does, it can certainly take down a whole lot of open pages. And that can ruin my day.

Re:Definitely Microsoft quality

[dschl]

I run Seamonkey (mozilla suite), which offers way more configuration options than Firefox - there is a preference option in which you can decide to "Open links meant to open in a new window" in (a) the current tab/window (b) a new tab in the current window and (c) a new window. Ajaxwrite opens in a new tab for me in Seamonkey.

I just downloaded and checked on the current portable Firefox, and while the options claim to allow you to configure similar behavior for tabs in the preferences (force links that open new windows to open in....), it didn't work for javascript - firefox opened Ajaxwrite in a new window instead of a new tab as it was supposed to.

Playing with about:config will give you the behaviour you want in Firefox. Type about:config into your address bar. Find the preference named browser.link.open_newwindow.restriction. Set the value to 3 (just double click on the preference name, and a popup dialog will allow you to change the value). Then keep on browsing (it automatically saves as soon as you change the value)

Otherwise, switch to Seamonkey.

Re:Definitely Microsoft quality

[SpectreHiro]

It doesn't crash often, but when it does, it can certainly take down a whole lot of open pages. And that can ruin my day.

Well, I can't fix your problem in Firefox, but you might want to consider giving Opera a shot. It can be set to automatically restore the last session on startup, which is invaluable when you tend to keep a large number concurrent tabs open. You can also save and restore custom sessions... That's enough proselytizing for one day.

Re:Definitely Microsoft quality

[gpuk]

While I understand your frustration, the way in which they have done this is regarded as the most elegant solution (it is even recommended by www.quirksmode.org - which is hardly run by a newbie).

Using an onclick handler for the JS and pointing the actual href to a standard "you do not have JS enabled page" allows you to simply and elegantly target both people with JS and people without.

If you simply place the JS in the href portion of the tag ie. href="javascript: doSomething()" then any user without JS enabled will sit there clicking away and nothing will happen. At least with the other method he is taken to a page explaining what has gone wrong.

This method also removes the need for any messy "JS detection" routines hence keeping the code to a minimum (more maintainable, no need to worry about different browsers etc.)

Re:Definitely Microsoft quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Try the SessionSaver extension: http://adblock.ethereal.net/alchemy.cgi/SessionSav er

It saves all tabs when you close Firefox and when it crashes, just like Opera does.

Re:Definitely Microsoft quality

[Bogtha]

While I understand your frustration, the way in which they have done this is regarded as the most elegant solution (it is even recommended by www.quirksmode.org - which is hardly run by a newbie).

No. I'm very familiar with best practice regarding Javascript, and this most assuredly is not it.

While you are right that using a handler for the click event with a fallback URI is far better than href attributes containing javascript: URIs, the particular way they have gone about this is all wrong, and I'm sure ppk would be horrified to be associated with code of this quality.

There are three mistakes here.

1. The fallback page isn't a fallback page at all, it's a page telling you to change your browser settings. The correct approach would have been to actually use the content page as the fallback.
2. They are firing the handler for the click event when modifier keys are depressed. That's something that simply doesn't work for the way most browsers are configured. They should refuse to handle click events in such cases, leaving the default behaviour to execute.
3. They used a popup for no good reason.

All of these things are incredibly dumb when you consider that their core products are built with Javascript, so presumably they should have serious Javascript expertise in-house.

Platform-neutral downloadable web applications...

[rdeadman]

We should coin a name for it. How about "applets"? Hmmm. Wait a second...

Strange that we on Slashdot go gaga for anything AJAX while deriding Java as a slow, bloated pig. Seriously, AJAX is great for making web pages more responsive but is ill-suited as an applet replacement. Give me ThinkFree anytime.

Flame shields up...

Re:Not likely (but then it is cross platform!)

[Anonymous Coward]

If it does run in Mozilla, it is very much more cross platform then. Whinner.

Contest!

[Rob T Firefly]

First non-ironic mention of worst-buzzword-on-Earth contender "Web 2.0" wins a goatse link.

Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Bruce Perens]

Java was designed to do just this task. Next to it, AJAX is a kludge that gives us more interactive widgets on web sites simply, and is best for smaller jobs. If you're writing an entire client-side browser-delivered application, Java makes sense. Wedging your entire application into the browser DOM doesn't.

In contrast, Java was not designed to do server-side code, and is making less sense in that application as platforms that offer better time-to-market for server-side development become accepted.

Bruce

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[RPoet]

In contrast, Java was not designed to do server-side code, and is making less sense in that application as platforms that offer better time-to-market for server-side development become accepted.

Java wasn't "designed" for anything specific; it was designed as a general-purpose language and platform. It fits very well in the large server-side application domain, and is being used there more and more. Not sure where you get your impressions.

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Java was "supposed" to offer that. However, I've found that Flash is actually probably better for general end-user applications - just because the designers we have on staff (who don't know much more than basic programming) can develop slick, usable interfaces in Flash and would never be able to write the code up for the corresponding functionality in Java.

Flash may suck for a variety of reasons, but it does have that one useful quality: it doesn't take a left-brained CSci grad to implement designs in it.

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it has features, and well-defined delivery mechanisms, specifically for network delivery. Why does Java run in a sandboxed virtual machine? Because they anticipated you'd download and run Java applications from semi-trusted locations. Why do .jars exist? Partly so you can embed them in websites. What's Java Web Start for? Duh...

Java certainly doesn't have a monopoly on being an internet-delivered application, nor is it only used for that purpose, but I find it hard to dispute that it was designed with network delivery in mind.

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[pe1chl]

I always thought Java was designed to have us poor PC owners realize that our machines are far less powerful than a Sun, and that we should reflect a moment on how fast our machine would be if it were from Sun.

(this moment being the load and initialize time of the JVM)

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[RPoet]

Only applets are sandboxed. Client and server applications have full access to the system (as allowed by the APIs and OS).

Applets and JWS only build atop the Java language and platform. Their existance doesn't mean that Java was designed specifically for one thing or another.

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[kaffiene]

Wrong on both counts. Java was designed for embedded devices originally, and is currently the strongest player on the serverside, and not showing any sides of being "deRailed" by new technologies like Ruby, and was hardly scratched by .NET.

If M$ ramming .NET down your throat and the ./ FUD-Machine can't deter Java, nothing will (except time, and another great general purpose language, of course - which Ruby isn't).

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... That's not a good thing.

You'll wish for left brained CSCI grads when you're trying to maintain eleventy thousand poorly written flash apps that all perform similar tasks, but in slightly different ways.

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Bruce Perens]

Flash is a language for creating presentations, not applications. You shouldn't have to worry about security if you use it the way it's intended. But I wouldn't ask the folks who are mentally geared to write presentations to create an application. And yes, there are entire embedded user interfaces written in Flash, but IMO that's sort of a travesty.

Bruce

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Bruce Perens]

Sun made a point of bringing Java bigwigs over to Pixar when they made Java's debut. At that time, they were pretty clear about being browser-embedded.

I agree that lots of people still use Java for server-side development. My employer supports them. But I've always felt that a VM on the server does not make very much sense. At this point, I would find it difficult to justify basing a new web project on Java. It's just too slow to develop. And Rails scalability doesn't seem to be an issue. Technocrat.net, which is built on Rails - by me alone - and uses a lot of caching, can service 850 pages per second with just one dispatcher process. Disabling the cache, we still get around 150 pages per second. We should be so lucky as to need to scale above that.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

I agree that AJAX is not appropriate for writing a word processor, and I also agree that Java wasn't really intended for the server-side stuff it seems to be popular for now. And I agree that in theory Java applets should be used to create in-browser applications. Unfortunately, in practice Java applets are totally inadequate, even after all these years. There is still no fast, totally cross-platform, bug-free GUI toolkit, with accessibility support and such.

The funny thing is that browsers are full of bugs and AJAX applications usually have dozens if not hundreds of browser bug workarounds. But in a Java applet, if your JRE has a bug, you're usually stuck. JavaScript and modern browser DOMs have gotten flexible enough that it's actually possible to find a workaround for almost every bug imaginable.

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange then that people hate Java UIs and it's use on the client side whereas they love Javascript/AJAX client side, and Java on the server side.

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[GhodMode]

Java would be better suited for this type of task, but there is a different perspective to consider ...

I don't want to install Java. I don't want to install the runtime environment no matter how well my browser of choice has automated the process. I don't want to see that coffee cup, or whatever it is, in my system tray.

JavaScript, which is all AJAX actually is, on the other hand, is available by default in IE and Firefox. If, as a novice user, I visit a page and I'm prompted to install "missing plugins", I might be averse to visiting that page. Especially since all of the fuss with SpyWare started.

For my part I choose to enable JavaScript on every browser I use and, just by chance, I don't use any sites which require Java. So, I don't have Java installed on any computer which I do not use for development.

I choose to see the ajaxLaunch.com effort as more of a proof of concept. It's excellent, but I don't think they really expect to displace Microsoft Office. I definitely don't think they expect to displace more conventional programming languages with JavaScript and XML.

-- Ghodmode

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[kaffiene]

You said "Java was designed to do just this [web applications] task."

I said that Java was designed for embedded apps (which it was)

You replied "Sun made a point of bringing Java bigwigs over to Pixar when they made Java's debut. At that time, they were pretty clear about being browser-embedded."

Yeah, I'm sure they did. They were pretty clear about it being garbarge collected, object oriented and the the answer to life the Universe and Everything, but there's a big difference about what something is designed for and how it is marketed.

You said "I agree that lots of people still use Java for server-side development. My employer supports them. But I've always felt that a VM on the server does not make very much sense. At this point, I would find it difficult to justify basing a new web project on Java. It's just too slow to develop. And Rails scalability doesn't seem to be an issue. Technocrat.net, which is built on Rails - by me alone - and uses a lot of caching, can service 850 pages per second with just one dispatcher process. Disabling the cache, we still get around 150 pages per second. We should be so lucky as to need to scale above that."

If rails gives you a quick solution in that domain, great. By all means, use the tool that suits you best. What I don't understand is the rationale of your 'VM on the server does not make very much sense' comment. Why not? What difference does it make?

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[kaffiene]

Your post is pure FUD.

I agree that AJAX is not appropriate for writing a word processor, and I also agree that Java wasn't really intended for the server-side stuff it seems to be popular for now. And I agree that in theory Java applets should be used to create in-browser applications. Unfortunately, in practice Java applets are totally inadequate, even after all these years.

Really? In what way? Feel like justifying that in any way?

There is still no fast, totally cross-platform, bug-free GUI toolkit, with accessibility support and such.

Swing is all of that.

The funny thing is that browsers are full of bugs and AJAX applications usually have dozens if not hundreds of browser bug workarounds.

Which is exaactly why Ajax is a bad idea.

But in a Java applet, if your JRE has a bug, you're usually stuck.

Give an example. Find ANYTHING that is (a) a serious bug in the JRE and that (b) you couldn't work around. I remember a problem with date classes around Java 1.17 (7 years ago?), but recently? FUD again. Your argument is farcical - you point out that getting all browsers working consistenly is difficult then claim that Java is worse. Java is ONE product, and one which is utterly thrashed by industry - there's no way that major inconsistencies between core Java would be acceptable between versions or platforms.

JavaScript and modern browser DOMs have gotten flexible enough that it's actually possible to find a workaround for almost every bug imaginable.

And yet, amazingly, there's ALL these pages out there that DON'T actually work on multiple browsers. So, experience shows us that web apps are hard to get right, but Ajax is the way to go nevertheless, yet Java is bad for some undisclosed possible phantom reason that might occur maybe. Uh Huh. Oh well, this is Slashdot, I should expect this level of "reasoning"

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

I think you might be misinterpreting my comments as applying to Java in general - my complaints are specifically about Java applets.

• Unfortunately, in practice Java applets are totally inadequate, even after all these years.

Really? In what way? Feel like justifying that in any way?

1. Java applets don't integrate with a website. I have two choices: either put the applet in a non-resizable rectangle, or pop up a new window.

2. Java applets don't render text the same way the surrounding website does, so I can't use even use the same font for text.

3. Swing does not provide buttons, menus, checkboxes, and other widgets that look and feel exactly like the same native widgets on that platform.

4. It is not possible to give keyboard focus to an applet, and then give focus back to the browser, entirely using the keyboard - this makes them inaccessible.

5. While an applet has focus, many keyboard commands to interact with the browser stop working.

6. Java applets still take a while to start up.

7. Most users do not have a recent-enough JRE installed, so you have to either stay compatible with an ancient version of Java, or require a large fraction of users to install the JRE before they can use your site. In contrast, over 80% of web surfers are now using an AJAX-capable web browser.

• There is still no fast, totally cross-platform, bug-free GUI toolkit, with accessibility support and such.

Swing is all of that.

Accessibility is broken in applets. Swing has hundreds of known bugs; check out Sun's bug database. Sure, Swing is cross-platform - it gives you the same look and feel they've had for eight years that doesn't integrate at all with the local operating system. And even on modern hardware, Swing apps feel less responsive - things like scrolling or popping up a menu take an extra few milliseconds to pop up, and make things feel clunky.

OK, I gave you my complaints. If you want to refute them, give me one example of a great, polished, successful Java applet on a public website. Something that does something useful, integrates with the surrounding site, and works on all platforms (assuming you have the latest JRE and a modern web browser, of course).

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

Here's one blog where dozens of people have posted their complaints with Swing - they say it better than I could:

http://weblogs.java.net/blog/joshy/archive/2005/03 /why_dont_you_sh.html

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Bruce Perens]

The point of the VM is to provide object-code portability between disparate CPU instruction sets. On the server platform, source-code portability is probably more than sufficient. We go to great lengths like JIT compiling to get around the fact that the object is delivered as a sort of p-code. If you're going to compile it, compile it to native code.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Bruce Perens]

Your complaints about Java are well-taken, but don't seem to be relevant for building a word processor. That's one case where we do want to have a separate window from the web site and don't want it to look like the web site.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Teckla]

On the server platform, source-code portability is probably more than sufficient.

I disagree. I'm reasonably geeky, and spend my fair share of time on Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, FreeBSD, Linux, and Windows Server. I very much appreciate being able to deploy many Java programs to any system and run those Java programs with a simple command like:

java -jar foo.jar

I like the fact that the compilation is being done by the Java VM behind the scenes, so I don't have to explicitly compile it. I just make sure a JVM is there. I don't have to make sure all the appropriate compilers and linkers are present, and at the right release level, I don't have to make sure all the appropriate dynamic libraries are present, and at the right release level, etc.

We go to great lengths like JIT compiling to get around the fact that the object is delivered as a sort of p-code. If you're going to compile it, compile it to native code.

Again, I disagree. I really enjoyed seeing nice performance improvements in Java programs just by upgrading from Java 1.2 to 1.3, from 1.3 to 1.4, and from 1.4 to 1.5. I didn't have to wait for the vendors of those Java programs to release new binaries that took advantage of Java compiler improvements.

I just upgraded the Java VM, and a whole bunch of Java programs performed better. That's convenience. That's ease-of-use. That's user friendly.

Re:Does anyone remember JAVA?

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

That's a good point. However, if you're going to build an application that opens its own window and doesn't really interact with the rest of the web browser, why even put it in the web browser at all? At that point you may as well have a client application, right? I guess I fail to see the advantage of a Java applet word processor, when I could have a client application (written in Java or any other language) that self-updates its code from a web server and has the option of storing / backing up my documents online, which seem to be the two main user advantages of a web-based word processor.

How klunky is writing an ajax GUI?

[earlgreen]

I'd like to know how long it took them to write this and how much of a headache it was. I mean, how fast is it really going to happen that this huge complex awful hack known as the web can replace decent traditional GUI toolkits? Or does ajax hide all the crap from the programmers?

Re:How klunky is writing an ajax GUI?

[knewter]

Speaking for myself, AJAX GUIs are supremely easy to write in something like Rails. I came from .NET, and an AJAX GUI (via Rails) + CSS is absolutely my favorite way to write webapps. .NET is the miserable.

Once again I have to bring up my favorite whine from the .NET world: They have a CheckBoxList control. There's no way to return an array of checked items. Sure, I can iterate...but then they aren't providing anything at all with the control, are they? (Disclaimer: I left my old job to start a Rails startup right as the transition to VS2005 was happening, so I'm mildly out of touch. I will say that Atlas was miserable to use as little as two months before its official release.)

Umm ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm okay neither IE nor Opera work, isnt that special.

oblig

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Spout "Ajax M$Office Killer"
2. Offer service for free
3. Get /.ed
4. ???
5. Profit!!!

Needs Shortcuts

[buffoverflow]

No, it's not perfect, but all must agree that it's a relatively decent start at truly usable web-based apps. The one thing that I immediately noticed, and believe will be an issue when it comes to user adoption, is the fact that you can't use hotkeys/shortcuts. Every word processor power user I know, relies heavily on hotkeys (it's part of the reason they're power users). I know I found myself hitting ^"whatever" fairly often.
Not bad, but still some major hurdles to get around before apps like these become commonplace.

Re:Needs Shortcuts

[MightyMartian]

To be honest with you, I really don't see how full-blown wordprocessors really will function all that well as web-based apps. Wordpad-style apps certainly, notepad stuff makes sense. But I just see too many practical limitations.

What I'm thinking of writing, if I can find the time to bone up on all of this, would be something like an Ajax-based point-of-sale/accounting system. That, to my mind, would be a far better kind of application to benefit from this sort of technology.

MS Office is not about content creation

[colnago]

MS admits that pushing the content creation envelope is not the strength of office as this is now commodity behavior. The value of office is that it integrates with the MS stack of collaboration products across the back-end that allows enterprise productivity -- not enterprise content creation.

If you want content creation that approaches MS Office use OpenOffice or any other office suite. You can add this one to that list.

Cross Platform?

[jcull]

Not when it doesn't work with the browser that comes with my Mac! Nothin' wrong with FireFox, except that I don't use it. . . ever. . . Safari works just fine and is better integrated.

I'd be pissed...

[Grant29]

I'd be pissed if I was writing a document and then someone DDOSed the site (either intentionally, or via a slashdotting/digged/farked onslaught) and I lost all my data. What happens if you are in the middle of a dodcument and a router, ISP, or web server bites the dust? Too many points of failure for me.
--
Price Comparison with coupons!

Re:I'd be pissed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Put your damned spam in your signature where I don't have to see it.

"Platform Independant..."

[afroborg]

... except that the platform it runs on is Mozilla. Just because the platform isn't an OS doesn't mean it's independant.

It won't even try to run on Opera, so AFAIAC it might as well not work at all. And come on, locking out IE? Doesn't that lock out MOST of the market????

styles and formatting

[Kris Magnusson]

one killer feature that ajaxwrite must have is styles and formatting. it's simply not useable for anything but writing notes without it. .......... kris

Dont worry about clippy.

[mOOzilla]

Somebody will have a "Clippy" the must install activeX control just so it can make your online purchasing that bit easier, assist you in searches of airline tickets and manage your credit card numbers online with a single click.

NullPointerException

[Mock]

Load a simple word document, get a NullPointerException.

Nice program you got there.

Re:NullPointerException

[RockDoctor]

Load a moderately complex document, get NullPointerException.
Load a less complex document, get NullPointerException.
Load an even less complex document (the table of contents from the manual in question. You think I'm going to trust a client's confidential data to the web!??), get the application to admit being unable to open the document.
        Move on to next story. Will come back in a month or two.

Thumbdrive + Portable OpenOffice.org

[tabdelgawad]

Get yourself a copy of Portable OpenOffice.org and a thumbdrive, and you're much better off than relying on Ajax and an internet connection.

It's down...

[Anonymous Freak]

Man, this went down faster than a transvestite hooker going down on Hugh Grant.

(Yeah, the joke's a few years old, but I still chuckle...)

Re:It's down...

[Tankko]

>> Man, this went down faster than a transvestite hooker going down on Hugh Grant.

Not to nitpick, but this should be:

Man, this went down faster than a transvestite hooker on Hugh Grant.

The second "down" wrecks the flow of the sentence.

Comedy is hard.

Re:It's down...

[Anonymous Freak]

You are correct. I wrote it, and knew it didn't look right, but couldn't figure out why.

Thanks.

Not quite MSWord...

[BishonenAngstMagnet]

Last time I checked, MSWord doesn't get Slashdotted.

Re:Not quite MSWord...

[squizzz]

Last time I checked, MSWord doesn't get Slashdotted.

...but in Soviet Russia, MSWord slashdots you!

These people are delusional.

[inexorablewanderer]

This functionality is indispensable: dynamic object links, autosaving, mail merging. If I used Word more, I'd have other examples. This is just a flashy toy that I could have written long ago. Ajax is easy. Hooray for the new web-based Wordpad.

AjaxWrite: 503 Service Temporarily Unavailable

[zooblethorpe]

Why Ajax isn't always appropriate:

Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.ajaxlaunch.com Port 80

Portability across platforms is great, but we'll still need a local copy. Which would seem to bring us back to XUL...

Must be a typo

[Anonymous Coward]

They must have made a typo when identifying the product they're competing with. I'm almost sure they meant Word*pad*, but even then it's intersting how I'd prfer Wordpad to this...thing.

Re:Must be a typo

[larry bagina]

no, this is Michael Roberts. As in Lindows/Linspire. The guy that claimed linux + wine could run 100% of your windows applications, without any problems.

Internet dependant?

[kahn]

So, what happens if I lose my internets connection while working on something important or the interwebs is down and I need to work on something?

While all this technology is nice and my internet connection is good, I think I will keep my local programs.

-Kahn

Sounds great and I'm all for it but

[future assassin]

I've never seen MS Word do this

Service Temporarily Unavailable

maybe they need an animated can of Ajax holding a Service Temporarily Unavailable sign when the service goes down.

Also I'd like to say that BSOD reads and sound much better then STU

Wiki Online WP

[jettoki]

When I want to do word processing online, I use PBWiki on a private page. You have a complete history of changes made to the page available to download as backup versions, etc. And the wiki is available to you from any computer with an internet connection.

These are the only possible advantages I can see to word processing online, outside of cost benefit. I'd much rather use MS Word or Open Office for most tasks.

Hype i

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

People, in my experience, don't necessarily want to be on the web to use a word processor/similar application.

Don't think "web based", think "browser based". The app itself can be running some stripped down web server-type component, and script language interpreters like Perl and PHP... Nothing here demands Interweb connectivity... But this app in particular is not ready to take on MS Word, not even close. There are a million nice Rich Text editors out there, for example FCKeditor...

Word Processor?

[Anonymous Coward]

No headers, no paragraph styles, no templates, no track changes, no hidden text, and the no list goes on forever. This does not even compare to Wordpad, let alone a real word processer. Ajax is like those editing toys found on Myspace, Blogger, and the like. Handy for simple posts, but not up to doing a junior high term paper.

Uhhh...Firefox only?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I know you are all Firefox and Mozilla snobs, but I'm an IE snob. (has to do with my logitech mouseman not scrolling) Why a Firefox only release? So much for cross-platform. When it works in all browsers, then I'll give it a try.

Writely

[CastrTroy]

Where Writely. I tried it out and it's pretty good. As far as web based word processors go. Seems to have a lot of features that AjaxWrite is missing.

Cavemen

[triptolemus]

Hey, some cavemen called, and they want their invention of the wheel back.

This is very very depressing

[Hans Oesterholt]

When will people stop overestimating what they've created?
This cannot be called a descent word processor! When did
the creator of this "word processor" check Microsofts Word
the last time? Before 1992?

"Bye Bye Microsoft Word, Hello ajaxWrite" I consider
this to be utterly stupid. I can imagine that over a few
years time, this spike could grow into a real word processor,
but please, be honest about what AjaxWrite is. And it's not
much yet.

Thinkfree Office Online

[Yekrats]

Just last week a co-worker showed me Thinkfree Office Online which I thought was pretty impressive. Word-processor, spreadsheet, PowerPoint clone, all with 30MB of free disk space.

Warning: it's slow to get started the first time, because of massive Java-Fu.

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not stronger than dirt, I'm not using it.

Oh, would PLEASE give me a break.

[Qbertino]

Ajax here, Ajax there, AJax everywhere! PHP and Ajax, Perl and Ajax, MS now supports Ajax, Ajax and RAILS! RUBY ON RAILS WITH FOAM AROUND MY MOUTH. Rails FIRST TO SUPPORT AJAX (which stands for Asynchronous JavaScript and XML as opposed to sychronous JavaScipt! DON'T forget: YOU DON'T WANT Synchronous JavaScript Synchronous = bad, AJAX = GOOD!) Ajax will change everything - especially since we needn't use a word that people will confuse with JAVA for allways and ever.

My god the dumbness of people is truely astonishing. This is sooo exausting.

For the uninformed: JavaScript Browser Applications (now called Ajax since 12 months ago) for a restricted set of Browser have been around FOR AGES! I've been doing stuff that is called Ajax today in 1999 and I was late. It was a neat toying around back then with serious performance and cross browser issues that boged the whole thing down and it still is today. This isn't going to change just because some later day new economist coined the term Ajax. The DOM issues didn't go away over night either.

Re:Oh, would PLEASE give me a break.

[wysiwia]

... I've been doing stuff that is called Ajax today in 1999 and I was late ...

I just wonder, did you also use the XMLHTTPrequest? So you might have done similar stuff (probably ActiveX) but not what Ajax go its name from. As a side note Microsoft implements the XMLHTTPrequest also into IE7, I guess since most companies (and users) disable ActiveX by default.

While Ajax currently is just a buzzword it certainly will have quite some impact on how the web will look like in the next years.

O. Wyss

It's all about marketing

[CAPSLOCK2000]

Some people don't like Michael Robertson, but I do. He's not your typical open source hero, but in a way he is one of the pioneers.
Free and Open Source software needs all kinds of people. Besides programmers you need documentation writers, artists, interface designers, lawyers, activists, and marketeers. Michael Robertson is good at marketing. He is good at promoting software solutions. He uses a lot of open source software for that, including some rebranded and extended applications.
Some people claims he steals and abuses that software, without giving back. I do not agree with that, his companies play by the rules and release source when necessary.
But sourcecode is not his important contribution, marketing is. Allthough you might not like his products, the bottomline is that he is promoting free/open software, and people are using it who might not have done so otherwise.

Couldn't save file

[rahuja]

Well, maybe the error is specific to my client (missing compoenent?), but I got this error on saving. [Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [nsIXMLHttpRequest.send]" nsresult: "0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE)" location: "JS frame :: http://207.67.194.7/apps/explorer/content/File.js :: anonymous :: line 536" data: no] I'm using Firefox 1.0.7 on Ubuntu. I wouldn't want to release a half-baked product and claim it's as good as A, B or C.

It's a good idea but....

[Anonymous Coward]

On their website they make some very interesting points....

> * Global access, all you need is an internet connection
> * Platform independent, you can use it with any operating system
> * Automatic updates and upgrades, no more computer restarts or missed patches/updates
> * Server side management -- all the busywork is done for you

But they forget one very important thing. What happens when their site is down? Am I supposed to stop typing my very important document that needed to be done yesterday and wait for these people to fix their site.

AjaxWrite not available

[WeaverBen]

I clicked, and I promptly discovered the grand flaw of Web-based apps: If you want to do something NOW, and the server is swamped, you are SOL.

DVDJon

[vsimon]

Did DVD Jon have a hand in this?
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,69257, 00.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2

All they need

[thealsir]

Is a bunch of buttons that insert custom HTML tags. That way, the user can make a font any size he/she wants. Mozilla's font tags are anyway from the stone age; any real ajax editor doesn't use them. And there are significantly developed spelling/thesaurus/etc. libraries out on the net. Combine all this and you could make an ajax word. But sorry, a repackaged Midas Demo is hardly groundbreaking.

The only compelling thing

[supe]

i can see is it will save as a pdf. Big deal, Redmon and GS
do a fine job of that. And pdf sucks anyway.

Re:The only compelling thing

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And pdf sucks anyway.

PDF does not suck. PDF rocks! The diabolical combination of MS Windows (The OS that can't multitask its way out of a wet paper bag), Adobe Acrobat Reader (the bloated and glacially slow reader), and your favorite flavor of browser sucks. People click on a link in their browser then scream as their system grinds to a halt while the reader launches and the PDF downloads, which can take significant time. The the reader itself is slow due to trying to multitask with the browser. That sucks.

PDFs on Linux or OS X are much nicer, especially when viewed by a separate program instead of a browser plug-in and especially when not using anything from Adobe. It is sad that the people who pretty much invented the standard now have such a popular and horrendous implementation of it.

Re:The only compelling thing

[supe]

No disrespect intended but..

PDF does suck. Largely uneditable without the bloatware you accurately describe. The only true portable document format is raw text.

I very much agree with most of your post. That is why I install ghostscript and
a port redirector for creating pdfs, fast and no adobe product needed. Because pdf
is such a popular format I have to provide a solution.

And what besides gs/gv and xpdf allow you to view pdfs in *nix userland.. a shitty port
of acrobat reader! Com'n.

Re:The only compelling thing

[Coryoth]

And what besides gs/gv and xpdf allow you to view pdfs in *nix userland.. a shitty port
of acrobat reader! Com'n.

Well let's see there's original gv (XAW3d), ggv (GNOME), Evince (GNOME), kpdf (KDE), ViewPDF (GNUStep), gPDF (GNOME), xpdf (Motif), GSpdf (GNUStep), Multivalent (SWING), Cenon (GNUStep), plus probably some I don't know of or forgot. If absolutely none of those happen to suit your needs then I guess, yes, you can use Acroread if you really really want.

Jedidiah.

Re:The only compelling thing

[Iaughter]

mod parent up!

preview kicks a$$

Re:The only compelling thing

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

I totally agree! Mac users totally love PDFs. They're super fast, you can turn ANY document into a PDF, effortlessly and flawlessly, you can crop them and convert them to other formats, you can view them in a web browser, you can send them to anyone to print, etc.

Adobe Reader is the only thing that sucks. PDF is great.

Re:The only compelling thing

[AaronLawrence]

Except of course for that minor thing of allowing font scaling and wrapping to suit the size of the screen.

PDF is great when you want to send an exact representation of a printable document online. It's quite annoying for actually READING online.

Re:The only compelling thing

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

I agree, I think it's stupid when people put important information into a PDF file and give you no other way to browse and access it. That's not PDF's fault - PDF is great when you need a cross-platform, compact, reliable way to represent something intended to be printed.

Re:The only compelling thing

[Imsdal]

PDF does suck. Largely uneditable (...)

Well, that's the point! There are a million instances where you want to send someone documents that are uneditable. Ignoring that is ignoring reality.

And complaining about the fact that PDFs are hard to edit is like complaining about Excel not being a good database. True, but the tool wasn't intended to be used for that. Just because these tools are severely lacking, people use the good tools (Excel, PDF, Google and precious few others) in less than ideal circumstances. Understandable, but not the fault of the good tools.

Re:The only compelling thing

[nzhavok]

I have used Foxit reader for PDFs for some time now. It's < 1MB in size and doesn't require an install (or at least didn't if you downloaded the zip). I have found it to be pretty good, loads so fast it's unbelievable. There is also a pro version which you can pay for which gives you some limited editing capability. Here is a link

Wht stop at a few web-based applications ...

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just make the entire desktop (and associated applications) web-based like http://cosmopod.com/ CosmoPOD

Free?? Ha!

[soxos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL

Too slow

[Kawahee]

FCKEditor is a much more mature and much better editor.

this post

[Anonymous Coward]

wsa ritten in ajxwrite. Maybee spel cech is broken.

AjaxBrowser

[Arandir]

I'm still waiting for the AjaxBrowser. Then I can dump Internet Explorer, and do all of my browsing, like my word processing, online.

Re:AjaxBrowser

[Mr. Underbridge]

I'm still waiting for the AjaxBrowser. Then I can dump Internet Explorer, and do all of my browsing, like my word processing, online.

That's a really bad idea. You don't want to be tied to a net connection to depend on the availability of your browser. An online browser will never replace a standalone browser. You're still always going to want to have your Internet stored on your hard drive. ;)

Re:AjaxBrowser

[WWWWolf]

Actually there was a site that emulated the browsing experiences of various old browsers - launched a browser window with almost exact replica of Netscape 1.0 GUI, for example... the HTML emulation wasn't very accurate though, it sometimes didn't strip out all CSS, for example, and didn't break enough of the new tags. Let alone HTTP 1.1 features.

Re:AjaxBrowser

[Amit J. Patel]

Wait no longer. There is a web browser written in Javascript; I think it uses AJAX but I'm not sure. It's called Bitty Browser, and you can embed a browser inside a web page:

http://www.bitty.com/

Re:AjaxBrowser

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still always going to want to have your Internet stored on your hard drive. ;)

Uh oh! I think I just crashed the Internet!

Re:AjaxBrowser

[Arandir]

"Patent Pending". How soon until you have to pay royalties for browsing? Why not just use a frame instead like everyone else?

Re:AjaxBrowser

[Mr. Underbridge]

Uh oh! I think I just crashed the Internet!

That sucks. Did you get to the end first?

There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[milgr]

Last year when I needed by buy MS office for myself, I found that there was a less expensive, legal way...

Microsoft Office Student and Teacher Edition 2003 costs about $125, and can be run on three different computers.

Microsoft stresses that this version of their Office 2003 is only for non-commercial use. You qualify for this edition so long as you are 1) a full- or part-time student enrolled in a K-12 institution, 2) home-schooled, 3) taking at least 6 credits at an accredited college/university, or 4) a full- or part-time faculty member and work 20+ hours at a school.

When I bought my copy, I had a child in Kindergarten. A year later, and he still hasn't used Office -- but my wife and I did.

Sorry for that advertisement for M$ products.

Oh yeah, I frequently use Open Office -- which is free, does a great job most of the time, and runs on almost everything.

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[SupremeTaco]

I've never understood why no one else does that. Chances are everyone has a small community college somehwere close by. Pay the $25 and enroll. Then buy all the educationally priced software you want on Ebay or wherever you want. You don't have to enroll for classes, and you make the $25 back on your first purchase.

Or, sign up with a homeschooling organization. It shouldn't cost you anything but time (and kids, but you might already have some). Great, now you're a homeschooling parent. Sure the only topic you teach is Microwave Cooking 101, but your're a homeschool teacher.

Get creative here people, and quit complaining about high M$ software prices. Get the tools to do the job, so your're not switching formats/platforms/hairpieces so often.

My 3 Euros . . . .

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[Drantin]

And the military appreciation edition is only 60USD...

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood why no one else does that.

You seem to think you're very clever, but you're still paying over 100$ with that method, and wasting a lot of time jumping through hoops to boot. If you're going to scam MS you might as well go all the way and download a warez copy of Office.

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[saider]

Pay the $25 and enroll. Then buy all the educationally priced software you want on Ebay or wherever you want. You don't have to enroll for classes, and you make the $25 back on your first purchase.

Why bother? Just go to BestCircuitDepotUSA and buy one. It's not like they card you for it or anything.

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[eMartin]

Would you be using it ONLY for non-commercial stuff?

If not, then you might as well download/steal it, because why pay someone when you don't get a valid license to use it either way?

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[killjoe]

"When I bought my copy, I had a child in Kindergarten. A year later, and he still hasn't used Office -- but my wife and I did."

Since you didn't fulfill any of the items in the criterea I don't see why you just didn't find a pirated copy and use that? I mean if you are not going to obey the license they why bother paying 125 in the first place?

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you missed the 'K' (as in kindergarten) in K-12.

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[milgr]

"When I bought my copy, I had a child in Kindergarten. A year later, and he still hasn't used Office -- but my wife and I did."

Since you didn't fulfill any of the items in the criteria I don't see why you just didn't find a pirated copy and use that? I mean if you are not going to obey the license they why bother paying 125 in the first place?

But I did fulfill the criteria of the license. The criteria is that I have a child in school (K-12, and beyond). It is perfectly acceptable to install all three on machines that my son is not using.

The definition of commercial is a bit ambiguous, but I believe that I fulfill that requirement as well.

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[ssstraub]

The license also says that it must be removed from your machine(s) after you no longer meet the requirements. That's what my XP Pro license I got from my Univertsity said. I doubt anyone listens, but it's there all the same.

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[ElleyKitten]

Last year when I needed by buy MS office for myself, I found that there was a less expensive, legal way...

Yes. It's called OpenOffice. Or KOffice. Or AbiWord, if you just need word processing.

Maybe MSOffice has some cool features, but are those extra features really worth $125?

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[wnissen]

Actually, you assumed, and were wrong. From the Microsoft "Do You Qualify for Office Student and Teacher Edition" http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/prodinfo/ students/doyouqualify.mspx/page: "You are still eligible to use this product after you or a member of your household no longer qualifies as an educational user."

And to reply to the grandparent, you also failed to RTFM, and were kind of a jerk about it.

Walt

Re:There are ways to by M$ office for less...

[ssstraub]

Hmm, then either they changed their licence since 2003 or they have a bunch of licenses for this stuff. I'm guessing the latter. Maybe the University I went to didn't pay the maximum amount of money to Microsoft to qualify for a completely unrestricted license.

Opposite

[Gruneun]

I don't see this being a popular option in the home market. Business market, possibly.

My first thought was "Maybe for the home, but not my business." There's no way in hell I'm composing a proposal for a competitive contract on an open-source, web-based tool.

Maybe, when they release their version of Quicken, I can throw my finances up there, too.

Cross-platform my ass!

[GWBasic]

From /.'s front page:

These programs... are cross-platform

Cross-platform my ass! Since when does requiring me to download a proprietary browser make a web application cross-platform?

Even Wordpad and Notepad...

[ickeicke]

Apparently, spell checkers, word counts, arbitrary font sizes, find (there's a menu item, but it's disabled), and hyperlinks are all "obscure advanced features". Here, let me fix that for you, Mike:

ajaxWrite is a streamlined word processor, comparable to Microsoft Wordpad.

Even WordPad has options for arbitrary font sizes and a find option. Heck, even Notepad has a find option...

I just tested this

[Master of Transhuman]

with one of my own DOC files. It opened it and displayed it properly. Fair enough, although it wasn't a terribly complicated document - a one page affair with some bold, centering, etc.

However, if you look at the available menu, this thing doesn't even come close to Microsoft Word functionality. You can adjust the fonts, alignment, etc., basic stuff like that, and apparently insert a table (I didn't test that), but the rest of Word's functionality simply doesn't exist.

Nice try, Mike. Come back in a year when you've got something that really does the job.

Why do people try to convince people that some product does things it doesn't even come close to doing? Do they assume everyone is simply deaf, dumb and blind?

Robertson's new hobby..

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be interesting to see how long he sticks with this project before losing interest and moving on. Humorous timing also since Linspire laid off a quarter of it's employees yesterday to make them a more attractive aquisition..

In other news, it took a full 15 minutes for this ajaxWrite application to load on my machine and the menus don't seem to work in my environment at all.

Not even Hype 2.0

[moochfish]

Loses in MS Word-like functionality to: FCK Editor
Not much better than: Gmail Composer
Less compatibility than: Writely
Definitely not as good as: MS Office

DANGER DANGER MIKE ROBERTSON

[OverDrive33]

Is it just me or does Michael Robertson have a knack for WAY over hyping everything he does. Lindows/Linspire was supposed to change the Linux desktop world - and frankly Ubuntu has done a better job. SIPPhone doesn't seem to stand up to Skype. And Mp3.com got sold and redone by Cnet. Now this 'ajaxWrite' doesn't seem to be any different than the many other WYSIWYG editors available today.

I think Mr. Robertson should wait until his products/ideas are actually able to do what he says. But then again who does that anymore anyways?

Re:DANGER DANGER MIKE ROBERTSON

[Scud]

Personally, I think that he's grooming himself to take over after Jobs retires.

As for doing my wordprocessing on the net, first I want to know if this project has been brought to you by the nice folks at the NSA.

Soon

[umbrellasd]

Some day soon, internet will be as much a 24/7 utility as power. When that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if applications become to move toward such dependency on the fact, that they do not work without the internet anymore than they do without power.

You and I might hate that because we remember the "freedom" of doing things on your own disconnected from that big network, but the children or their children will never even notice it.

No internet access for a device will be just as disconcerting as it is when the lights go out for a day or two.

503??

[workshop]

Service Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

Damn, good thing i don't rely on this for my essays due the next morning...

Free Remote Desktop

[PineHall]

AjaxWrite is behind the times. There are plenty of better online Wordprocessors. There is now a free remote KDE desktop that you can access from your browser or from a client. OpenOffice is available online at Cosmopod, so why use a half finished product.

great concept, not likely to create real change

[virchull]

The idea to use AJAX to construct popular versions of business applications is a great one, but this implementation plan won't create meaningful change in user behavior. The application has to work on several browsers, has to maintain WYSIWYG appearance and format, needs spell check, etc. in order to be adopted by mainstream business users. At the moment, only geeks (who can spell!) need apply. Rather than a new application every week, spend your resources to make this one a mass market winner by updating with improvements every week. That would be value.

Is AJAX on?

[Anonymous Coward]

No?

AJAX off! AJAX off!

AJAX Office

OMG! My word processor is slashdotted

[Gax]

It looks like I can't write that term paper. I can't connect to my word processor.

Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at 207.67.194.7.
*The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
*If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
*If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

Microsoft Word 1. AjaxWrite 0

At long last!

[JaF893]

Someone has made a word processor that takes longer to load than OpenOffice 1.x!

Re:Platform-neutral downloadable web applications.

[jinushaun]

Wish I had mod points...

Very true. These new AJAX 'applications' are basically reinventing Java applets using the (unreliable) DOM. Applets were always derided because of abuses by developers (remember the 'lake' applet? or the applet rollover menues?) and because it was too slow for computers at the time. Sun's battle with MS didn't help its adoption either. Plus the Java runtime client was ginormous, relative to a Flash plugin. Applets were eventually replaced by Javascript and Flash.

ThinkFree's Office is very impressive, btw.

Java is already doing that, and better

[kaffiene]

Check out http://online.thinkfree.com/ Unlike the original article - this web-based Office suite will work on other browsers. Who needs Ajax when you've got Java :o)

Bad Idea, even if it could be pulled off

[nurb432]

The ASP idea failed the first 1000 times it was tried. I dont think its going to make it this time either, even if technology has finally caught up with the idea.

Who around here wants to lease their applications and be denied access to their data if they keep paying each month? Not I for one.

This existed for years!

[Egoweblog]

And it is called Bindows. I remember talking on bindows based forums two years ago and there was also a word-like application based on the Bindows framework. I was always wondering, why it didn't get more popular. The creators of Bindows are probably not very skilled in PR.

Each one does its own Ajax implementation

[wysiwia]

It strikes me curious that everybody creates it's own Ajax implementation but at the end you can't keep the sources closed. So why not team up with all the Ajax initiatives and concentrate on a single OpenSource implementation. I've just started to delve into the Dojo toolkit (http://dojotoolkit.org/) which seems to become quite amazing. See for yourself if it isn't the better way than your homebrew implementation.

O. Wyss

No Safari Support?

[nurb432]

How odd.. It wont work with a current version of Safari..

Re:No Safari Support?

[shimage]

Not that odd; it uses XUL, which is Mozilla-only (boo!).

Office icons

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to get in trouble, those toolbar icons are copyrighted. I researched once when I thought about using them in my project and Microsoft is quite strict with the usage of them

Web Browser

[PhYrE2k2]

Anyone else thing that maybe the Web browser may not be the best content delivery application out there?

Just give me OOo.org

[ChefBork]

Download it once -- for free -- and check for updates regularly.

Besides the fact that it's free (as in beer), it's also free (as in speech), and also free (as in format -- ODF anyone?).

Why use a web-based applet to create documents that aren't yours (stored on a server you may or may not control), that requires an internet connection to use (and forget dial-up!), or that stores the resulting document in a hack of a closed format that is troublesome to maintain and constantly changing and will be obsolete in a year?

Just give me OOo.org 2.x and its derivatives and I'll be fine.

Don't fix it if it ain't broken.

Waste

[The Cisco Kid]

I dont want my software as a 'service' (unless I'M providing the service).

I dont want to store my data on someone else's server.

I'd like a copy of the Gmail interface, that I could run on my own server, and access my privately stored email.

There was a recent article on Writely, which is apparently similar to this. I went to the site, hoping to download it, and put it on my server, but it too is a 'we store your files on our server' scenario. This might cut it for meaninless drivel teens want to exchange, but not for anything important.

Re:Waste

[Iaughter]

I dont want my software as a 'service' (unless I'M providing the service).

I feel the same way, except that I want to provide it for my users.

Seriously though, in a year or two we'll start seeing f/os ajax app's that duplicate the current new, proprietary stuff.

a good way to make a name for yourself, would be to write an open source ajax imap client

What's with all the hostility?

[Tyr_7BE]

People seem to be complaining that it doesn't load word docs flawlessly or that it doesn't have all their favorite features. People, it was released TODAY. To expect it to be a full out MS Word competitor on the release day is naive.

Google released an RSS reader that barely functions, and people lose their shit. Someone else comes out with a full featured online word processor, and everyone holds their nose. What gives?

I'm really Off Topic here, but...

[Sr. Pato]

I must say, your website is something I'm really looking forward to.
First impressions are good, hope it's just like what it seems. :-)
RUN FAT BOY!

Gotta love 'sig advertising.
Mods: Go ahead, kill my karma; it's of no use to me. Fye. FYE!

Holy crap!

[booch]

They're going to release a new program every week?!?! That's hella rapid application development. If they can actually keep up with that pace of development, they'll kick some serious ass. Of course, they'll need to maintain and update all their old code as well. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that they'll be able to maintain this exponential demand for developer time very long.

not a bad start, but needs a fair bit of work

[ssand]

It's not a bad start, but I doubt it will compete with MS Office in the way OpenOffice does. Besides the lack of formatting features (like font size), it doesn't sound like there is much of a difference between what some webmail provides, with the notable exception you can save the document to a file format. The fact that it is online only will probably cause more problems, such as potential for downtime, or when offline (something which will prevent this from being seriously used by those in a business, or for homework) as well as security issues. Sadly, I can see this becomming the odd knicknack on the internet that someone may use if they find themselves on a public computer and need to type something to print.

Convinced?

[rice_burners_suck]

I think it is very cool that entire applications can be delivered in this manner. On the one hand, we are sort of returning to the days of the dumb terminal, but on the other hand, we have smart terminals.

However, I am not convinced that the software industry will change quite yet. I think there is a place for AJAX applications, but there is quite a bit of software that I can think of that must run natively. Real time software, CAD/CAM/CAE software, graphic design software, audio and video editing software, and lots of other things must be designed for a particular platform and run natively.

As for AJAX, which means something about JavaScript and XML, who said you can't incorporate Java, Flash, and other elements as well, for a yet richer experience?

error

[wwmedia]

whenever i go to save a document i get

java.io.IOException. Conversion failed :(

useless!

[v3xt0r]

I've been trying randomly all day to connect to this application so that I can bare witness of what all this hype is about this, and after 20mins of the page loading, it opened a splash screen, then continued to load for another 20 minutes, which was when I said 'fuck this'.

Let me know when all the fanboys from digg are done slashdotting this app.

If they release the source code, then cool. Although, I suspect they will try to make this a web service, which if is the case, I won't be using it, or not until they upgrade their servers and bandwidth!

OpenOffice Import is Flawed

[swtaarrs]

I opened an incredibly simple openoffice document and it removed the indentation from all my paragraphs...indentation isn't an "obscure" feature.

ha ha ha

[marlinSpike]

he he he... this piece of crap is going to compete with MS Word!?!? What the #*@& are they thinking?!

If anyone can make that claim about a web-based tool, then http://www2.writely.com/info/WritelyOverflowWelcom e.htm/ Writely surely is at the top of the list.

This little toy called ajaxWrite is marginally better than the HTML text editor on Hotmail!!

That website looks horrible

[musselm]

All complaints about the 'functionality' of this 'web app' aside, that is one UGLY looking website.

Good news for Microsoft

[serutan]

Steve Ballmer reads Slashdot post explaining that there's no problem, gently puts down chair. Cowering co-workers resume their normal activities.

I hope writely kicks their ass

[gnurb]

What an ugly site- ajaxHype

Re:Platform-neutral downloadable web applications.

[palndrumm]

We should coin a name for it.

We already did - since web logs are now knows as 'blogs', web apps will from now on be known as 'bapps'.

Needs More...

[triso]

All I can say is, "It needs more cowbell."

Google Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

How long until google buys it ?

No Grid even

[Anonymous Coward]

Ajax doesn't even have a decent editable grid control yet. How are they gonna build an Excel clone without one?

MS Office Home

[westlake]

Microsoft stresses that this version of their Office 2003 is only for non-commercial use.

Retail boxed Student-Teacher Office 2003 is sold everywhere in the states, no academic ID required.

The next version dispenses with the fiction of academic distribution and will simply be called MS Office Home. The same three-seat licensing.

OneNote replaces Outlook.

Vista will have an upgraded Windows Mail client and iCal calendaring.

I was a little surprised to learn that the Usenet client survives in Windows Mail.

Next Release?

[triso]

We have a library of applications we have been working on to replace most of the standard PC software titles. Every week we will launch a new sophisticated program on Wednesday at 12:00 PST on ajaxlaunch.com.

So what's coming out next Wednesday? Maybe a spreadsheet named AjaxFourBanger. We've left out some obscure advanced features like transcendental and financial functions and given you the basics: addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.

Re:Platform-neutral downloadable web applications.

[Tablizer]

The biggest problem with Java applets is that they seem difficult to modularize so that one gets JIT client-side loading. Usually bunches of classes have to be loaded on the client before anything happens, perhaps the entire app. It would be nice if it only loaded what was used. A form-based approach, for example, would only have to load forms that the user actually goes to instead of all *potential* forms.

Perhaps Java applets *can* be partitioned such a way, I don't know, but almost no writer seems to do it. They are all a big ball of all-or-nothing.

Some things are just not meant to be.

[machx0r]

Folks, this is not what AJAX is supposed to be used for. It is a buzzword and Google's favorite tool for developing interactive web pages, but this does not mean it should be used to create complex applications whose development would be better suited by C, C++, or Java.

Doing things this big in AJAX is a big ugly hack. As for the future of word processing and word processing applications, What ever happened to the UNIX mindset? Lots of small utilities that do one thing very well, combined in complex ways, give you all the complex behavior and performance you need. In addition, they exist within the highly standardized (and therefore portable) frameworks of POSIX and the C Library.

My idea for the future of word processing: a powerful typesetting engine like LaTeX but much less convoluted. Documents would be written in XML. This sounds like HTML, but imagine a markup for documents that is rendered with utter precision (i.e. you can be 100% confident of how the final production will appear) and can be output onto various paper sizes rather than the sizeless web browser window. To further refine: something as precise as CAD, but meant for text, and easy to type in XML. For those that need a WYSIWYG interface to word processing, that might be a separate application that runs on the same engine.

And yes, I think it should run natively on your computer. Is this such a crime? As long as there are standards and specifications that are strictly adhered to, developing native applications does not mean they will be unportable or even a pain in the neck. Look at *nix and open source applications that can be compiled and run on almost every POSIX platform.

Heh

[mfh]

Strange that we on Slashdot go gaga for anything AJAX while deriding Java as a slow, bloated pig.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

I remember Java.

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's slow to start.

That's not to say it always has to be. Certainly, there's a lot that could be done about that startup time. In fact, if the whole browser was Java, there would be no startup time.

Come to think of it, that's why AJAX is so good for normal browsers. You already have to have an HTML/javascript engine running to display the page itself -- Firefox even needs that to display simple GUI elements. That's what XUL is -- wedging and entire application into the browser DOM.

Personally, I hate Java for other reasons -- proprietary, the language sucks -- but the tech is right, and if it weren't for the existance of Firefox, a Java browser might be a good thing. Surely a better end result than bad AJAX.

OS X just crashed - anybody else?

[LeDopore]

Just after opening AjaxWrite, OS X crashed. This has *never* happened to me before. Does anyone else have OS X crash on them too when they tried out AjaxWrite?

Re:OS X just crashed - anybody else?

[Ash-Fox]

Shh, don't say anything or Apple may sue you!

Is it just me...I guess so.

[jalspach]

Is it just me or does this seem to have most of what a person needs in a word processor? I have been reading the other comments and I think I am the only one who liked it.
"But...", people say, "...there are no arbitrary font sizes...you are limited to 7." I for one do not care. I rarely use more than a couple of sizes in my documents anyway.
"Well...", people say, "it does not translate word docs very well." This is not a problem if you use this program as a replacement for word or if you use simple documents.
"How about word count, or borders, or document map or...?" Ok, so it does not do everything. However, for most documents I work on none, of these things are necessary. Who cares how many words I have typed, or if I can insert a border? I generally do not.
I need to type a letter or a report that has bullets, numbered points, a few sizes and fonts, alignments and some indents. Page numbers would be a nice addition sometimes but that may be in the works. What else do you really need most of the time? About the only crucial thing I find missing is spell check but it appears that they are working on this since it is a grayed out option. Besides, for now I will use the Google tool bar for spelling check.

  If you want to have a watermark or if you need more than 7 text sizes or more fonts or type-along-a-line or whatever ... use a DTP program. For text processing I think they have the right idea. Put out a version with basic features and then add the ones most requested. This runs counter to the standard of adding every feature imaginable and then paying for (in disk space and in dollars) and not using most of them.
I am not saying that this is wholesale replacement for word in all cases but, I think it is a lot more than most people seem to be giving it credit for.

James

Agreed, Thinkfree is definately better

[bigdadro]

Not sure where i've been. Prior to this i had never even heard of thinkfree. I just took it for a test ride and am quite impressed. I completely agree. Thinkfree is lightyears ahead of ajaxwrite. In theory it could also be utilized "offline" due to it being a in javat. Knock on java all you want. It works, it is widely accepted, and it has an absolutely incredible developerbase/community. Ajax has it's place but that place isn't as a deskop app replacement.

Flex not Ajax

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Ajax the network is the computer trying all over again where java failed? it wont be Ajax, or Java etc. It will be a combination of light weight robust technologies like Macromedia Flex. Yes Flex utilizes Ajax (just a word for using dhtml, javascript and sometimnes xml together) The big clincher is tying it together with Flash.

Re:Platform-neutral downloadable web applications.

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

If Java had a fast, totally cross-platform and bug-free GUI toolkit, with full accessibility support for the visually impaired, and it was embedded into all web browsers, then I'd agree, in many ways Java applets would be superior. But the fact is that Java applets have none of those things. Great idea, no execution.

AJAX is at its best when it takes a concept that fits very well into the web paradigm, and adds desktop-application-like interactivity. Google Maps is a perfect example of this. Unlike a Java applet, you get a nice resizable window, almost instantaneous startup, and working back/forward buttons.

A desktop application like Word is a bad match for either a Java applet or an AJAX application.

Crossplatform, yeah right....

[hotarugari]

It doesn't even work on IE 6. How is that cross platform?

Re:Crossplatform, yeah right....

[Ash-Fox]

Firefox is cross-platform.

a dream that cannot come true

[icepick72]

This AJAX-for-all-things to replace all things concept is just not going to work. No matter how far we stretch the browser capabilities, it's just not equivalent to the stand-alone counterpart. You're always working within the limitations of the browser after which is evident 30 seconds after using AjaxWrite. If anything the revolution will come in the form of applications on demand delivered to your computer to be run natively for a more full-featured experience. This whole Ajax thing will be around forever but many aspects will be a flash in the pan like AjaxWrite. Remember when Corel tried to port WordPerfect over to Java (late '90s)? 'Nuff said.

Re:a dream that cannot come true

[josepha48]

I'd have to agree. I tried it and it says it loads in 6 seconds. Not at 992k ( which is as close as my dsl can get to 1.5M )! It took more like 60 seconds or so to load.

Then it failed to open up my resume which is a really simple word document.

I use ajax in my companies web application. I do think that it will take time before people learn how to take advantage of this technology in a way that really makes sense. Some people are doing it now, but I think most people are going to put stuff out there that is to much for what the internet is ready for.

Most people do not have the bandwidth to work with this application. It may make more sense if there was a server in an office that people would run thier applications from.. oh that's what citrix does....

I like the tabs

[pepax]

Did anyone notice that if you work on multiple documents you can switch between them by clicking on the tab at the top? Cool.

.txt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tried to open a .txt file...said it "couldn't read document". NEXT!!

Forgetting the OObvious

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that I am suprised to have not seen is any mention of real open source word killers like Open Office, or even the KDE offering.

Wonderful! ... but not for evree1

[GhodMode]

I live in the jungles of Borneo... okay, it's not that bad, but it's East Malaysia. Unfortunately most homes here, and even most offices, do not have an Internet connection. There's generally only one ISP and they don't care about maintaining their service because you can't threaten to switch to another provider. So, there's no reliable internet connection.

I don't have any doubt that they will iron out all of the bugs, including copyright issues and document formatting, but the fact that it's Web-only makes it unreliable for me.

On the other hand, I'm a Linux enthusiast and a wannabe Web Developer who has dabbled a bit in AJAX. Naturally, I have a slight bias against Microsoft. I think that this is absolutely fantastic as a proof of concept. I think that this might be a significant part of the goal of the folks at ajaxLaunch.com, to say "Yes, we CAN do that in a Web browser." So, kudos to them.

-- Ghodmode

Hey its just XUL Ajax my foot

[blackhaze]

Umm, shouldn't this be called XULwrite?

Seems like more XUL is used from the Mozilla engine then any 'Ajax'. Shame, I was looking forward to see something a tad better ;-)

IMHO a better example that uses XUL is @Mail - http://demo.atmail.com/ - It contains some good examples of mixing Ajax & XUL together.

What will happen to existing investment?

[unknownworld]

What will happen to customer's existing investment in VBA?
Customers use most MS office products along with VBA.

What's the point?

[Scentless]

Would someone please tell me the point of trying to recreate perfectly good desktop software using javascript? Seriously, who would even consider going to some strange website just to type a letter? Is a good desktop text editor that hard to find?

All these web 2.0 advocates should really focus on creating applications that take advantage of the platform instead of building substandard versions of readily available desktop apps.

Check out Pindax.com. Here's a rich app that leverages being on the web!

Windows version coming soon!

[Delgul]

I was surprised to notice that there was no reaction about IE not being supported. From the site:

"Just a sticky note to let everyone know that we ARE going to support both Internet Explorer and Safari when we release the final version, even though we currently only support Firefox.

Firefox is much more Ajax-friendly, and it has been much easier to prototype for it. Also, some of our code requires XUL, which is Firefox-only; we're having to devise work-arounds for other browsers, and those aren't ready yet.

Thanks again for all your input and suggestions on this and other topics. I'm putting this note here so there's no confusion; yes -- we ARE going to support the most popular browser on the Internet, eventually. :-P"

Good to see roles reversed for a change! Now the hard-core Microsoft addicts finally get to feel the old and trusty "we are going to support your platform soon... eh...eventually...eh...perhaps...eh...whenever we feel like it" argument :-).

It only works with FireCrotch?

[JournoBug]

How egalitarian of them. I thought it was a big cross-platform all inclusive love-in until I went there with my IE7 and it wouldn't work.

Re:Not likely (but then it is cross platform!)

[hairyfeet]

I don't know about Mozilla,But it sure doesn't seem to like my Seamonkey.I gave it Javascript permissions,Had both Java and Javascript turned on,And gave their site permissions for pop-ups but no go.

I did get it to run in FF.It hosed the font on three of the five docs I tried and couldn't load one of the other two at all.I think I'll stick with MS Office at school and Open Office at home.I do wish them luck,though.Maybe with enough competition MS will stop hosing folks on the price of Office.(Hey,I can dream)

These comments are pretty depressing :P

[kulvik]

I have a suggestion for you /. nerds:

Instead of using 20000 lines of negativity to list everything this application didn't do and everything that could possibly go wrong, try focusing on what's cool :)

This guy have invested a lot of time into his project and have come up with something "pretty cool". Sure it can't replace MS Word, but i'd still like to give him some credit. It's a interesting demonstration of Ajax technology. Nothing more.

Keep up the good work! :D One day you'll make somethink that doesn't get butchered on /.


-Thomas

How things change...

[joebp]

"Requires Firefox" is the new "Requires Internet Explorer." It's a pity the web is still so stupid.

It's EXACTLY like word!

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to move an image and it vanished. This is VERY similar to what happens when I try to use word.

Note to Self

[cropro]

Note To Self: Time to take another look at the CoolWord project:

1) Add transperancy to the master bitmap, adopt Vista look
2) More shadowing on the toolbar image, need to look more real
3) Align the Rich Text Box over the bitmap, it still looks crooked
4) If anybody starts using it, add the Open and Save functions

Firefox only?

[PaulMorel]

Bwahahaha! They expect this to 'compete' with Office without IE support?!?! Bwahahaha! At my office, and many offices that I know of, we aren't even allowed to download firefox, becuase our network security software relies on all the stupid hacks in IE!

How will 99% of the business market ever get to see this product without using Firefox? bwahaha.

I guess this was some sort of joke.

Maybe I will get to check it out at home, where I use Firefox, and am constantly using Ms-Office. Yup, in the Office, I play WoW, and at home, I use Ms-Office. It's not the other way around at all. bwahahaha!

oh well, at least it gave me a good laugh.

Nothing fits the bill

[willCode4Beer.com]

"If Java had a fast, totally cross-platform and bug-free GUI toolkit, with full accessibility support for the visually impaired"

Hmmm, and where is the alternative?
It appears that none of these things exist
  totally cross-platform
  bug-free GUI toolkit
  full accessibility support for the visually impaired

According to that comment, we shouldn't be building any applications.

Large documents?

[gentlemen_loser]

Everyone made some really good points - so I will not rehash any of them. But to add one other concern:

Out of curiosity and after reading the claims about MS doc format compatibility, I thought I would try opening one of my 300+ page work documents. I got a java.lang.NullPointer exception just a few seconds into the operation. I left the browser open and roughly 4 minutes later it crashed Firefox and took all of my tabs with it.

People keep trying to push applications to the web calling them "ultra thin clients". I'm really not sure that the web is the place for anything but the most trivial applications. Er, to clairify, I am not saying that applications should not be able to use TCP/IP to communicate over large distances. I'm just saying that most complex software lends itself to being run locally. Another example - pigs will probably fly out of my ass before I am receptive to the idea of using personal finance software from a web service provider...

Re:Platform-neutral downloadable web applications.

[pmike_bauer]

"fast, totally cross-platform and bug-free GUI toolkit, with full accessibility support" Ok, let's compare platforms based on your criteria. Java 1. good performance and getting better 2. Java defines cross-platform (binary) 3. Java has several first-rate GUI toolkits (Swing, SWT, thinlets). a. Swing has better support for accessibility than most other toolkits (javax.swing.plaf.multi.Multi*UI). b. Swing is very stable and mature AJAX 1. horrid performance 2. the largest target (IE) doesn't follow standards. All the other browsers have their own quirks to code around. 3. CSS/HTML is a poor desktop publishing technology, not a GUI toolkit. If you want pixel-precise rendering, go someplace else. a. accessibility? what accessibility? b. JavaScript has the dubious distinction of winning 'the best language with most many BAD implementations' award.

Re:Platform-neutral downloadable web applications.

[pmike_bauer]

"fast, totally cross-platform and bug-free GUI toolkit, with full accessibility support"
Ok, let's compare platforms based on your criteria.

Java
1. good performance and getting better
2. Java defines cross-platform (binary)
3. Java has several first-rate GUI toolkits (Swing, SWT, thinlets).
      a. Swing has better support for accessibility than most other toolkits (javax.swing.plaf.multi.Multi*UI).
      b. Swing is very stable and mature

AJAX
1. horrid performance
2. the largest target (IE) doesn't follow standards. All the other browsers have their own quirks to code around.
3. CSS/HTML is a poor desktop publishing technology, not a GUI toolkit. If you want pixel-precise rendering, go someplace else.
      a. accessibility? what accessibility?
      b. JavaScript has the dubious distinction of winning 'the best language with most many BAD implementations' award.

No Safari

[BodhiCat]

Grrr, no Safari support. I have to go to the trouble of opening another browser to use this and entering the web address all over again. Too much work. I give up.

What.....???

[willCode4Beer.com]

I thought OSX was supposed to be "uncrashable".

finding it...

[wygit]

verry funny...
yahoo: Results 1 - 10 of about 31,400 for ajaxwrite
google: Your search - ajaxwrite - did not match any documents.

no Opera

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be cross platform but it does not support Opera 8.53

It wouldn't be too bad if ....

[DerWulf]

... the description of this wouldn't contained so much BS. Compete with Office XP? Yeah, that's a good one. Not only is the thing slow as hell (I'm sorry, at work I just can't wait 2 minutes for a wordprocessor to load and one minute per menu-click), it's missing important Word features such as drawings and a spellchecker. After playing around with it for 5 minutes I found 3 grave bugs already: import not possible for a small and non-fancy word file, font display will not update if the cursor is at a position with different font, trying to save the "Introducing ajaxWrite" file gives me all kinds of errors. Also this thing copies the really bad behaviour of office: changing font before writing something seems impossible. So, we have slow, incomplete and bugridden. Thanks, I'll just spend money to get real software then.

Beta?

[VGfort]

I'm guessing this is a Beta, due to all the complaints Ive read here. It looks well done, it has tabs, nice interface, it even grabbed the XP WindowsBlind theme I had and used it for the interface somehow.

Re:Platform-neutral downloadable web applications.

[JavaRob]

This is an old frustration of mine. I have a bunch of related applets on different pages that share *most* of their code and resources, but not all.

If I put each one into its own JAR, the client JVM can't usefully cache classes -- it has to download the entire JAR for the next applet. So I still have the applets loading the way they did in the 1.0.2 days -- one class at a time, uncompressed.

I'm pretty sure even remotely recent Sun JREs support specifying multiple JARs, but of course I still have to support the (still quite pervasive) Microsoft 1.1 JRE.

good tradeoff

[namekuseijin]

"so we've replaced OS-specific software with browser-specific software"

How is this different from writing your apps in java so that they're cross-platform -- at the cost of being tied to the java platform? A XUL app needs a XUL runtime -- just Mozilla apps for now -- just as a Java app needs a java runtime.

There will be, however, a XULRunner standalone lib, which, if LGPLed or something will let other projects use it to run XUL apps as well...

I think it's a much better tradeoff to be cross-platform while being tied to a specific -- but thouroughly good -- technology.

Ajaxwrite using stolen images

[Anonymous Coward]

Ajaxwrite using stolen images from MS Word 2003.

Checkout this thread on their own forums:

http://www.ajaxlaunch.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=77 #77

With specific examples by yours truly.