Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In-Depth ajaxWrite Review

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the web-words dept.

mikemuch writes "ajaxWrite is the first offspring of ajax13, Michael Robertson's (of Lindows and SIPphone fame) latest startup that aims to deliver a brave new line of web-delivered, AJAX-based apps. ExtremeTech today has an in-depth review of just how apt a replacement ajaxWrite is for the big installed word processors. It's a neat idea, but let's just say the web-based word processor has some catching up to do."

4 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Said it before, and I'll say it again by WedgeTalon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I said this back when /. ran the first story about ajaxWrite, and I'll say it now - ajaxWrite isn't near OO.o's or Abiword's league; its competition is Wordpad... and Wordpad is winning. This article is just reaffirming what was so plain to see when looking at the app for 5 minutes.

  2. AJAX Apps Will Never Replace the Real Thing by dteichman2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    JavaScript (ECMA) is slow and resource intensive. Even more so when communicating with a server. A portable document editor may be fine and dandy, but I'd really rather carry around a copy of Portable OpenOffice on one of my USB drives. While a real app may be large, at least it's full-featured and (mostly) responsive/stable. I don't know about you, but it would suck to have your net connection give out and lose everything since the last update.

    --


    Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
  3. This Company is Screwed by dteichman2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The same people who rolled this out, also have an AJAX video editor. The problem with editing video on a web interface is that all rendering must be done on the server-side. The problem with server-side rendering of video at or near realtime is the necessity of a renderfarm. The problem wth a renderfarm is that it costs money. The problem with costing money is that there's no way they can make any, except by charging ads, which won't be near enough. They could embed ads into the videos, but I still don't think that'd cut it. I'd only pay to have my vids rendered online like this if it was dirt cheap ($1 or $2/month), which a renderfarm isn't.

    --


    Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
  4. Re:Interesting by LO0G · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except, of course this isn't an AJAX application. It's an XUL application, which has nothing to do with ajax.

    Sort-of like the relationship between "javascript" and "java", only more tenuous (at least both of those were programming languages).