Technically, maybe - yes the bandwidth/power/storage is available, but at what cost - which is what the parent mentioned. If your software does become incredibly popular, such as an OpenOffice.org-type suite, the bandwidth is available, but costly. Ditto for the storage space/power.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Seems that we're all picking on the UI design. I want to pick on file formats. I have an Aunt who cannot open PDF files because she didn't install Acrobat Reader. Trivial, admittedly, but it adds another layer of complexity. I can see why we need different file formats, they each have advantages and disadvantages, but why should we have to install a new application to use a different file format that somebody else has sent us? Couldn't we come up with a browser with PDF support built in (assuming there are no legal restrictions)?
A few days ago I downloaded a DAA file. Never heard of it. Wikipedia informs me it is a proprietary format used by PowerISO and offers password protection, compression, and splitting. A RAR file gives me all of the above even if I use an ISO. Secondly, the file didn't actually use any of the above "features", so it was a pointless excercise. I had to hunt down a copy of PowerISO just to burn it because Daemon Tools or Alcohol 120% doesn't support it. I have to say it is the msot pointless file format I have come across.
RAR files and ZIP files would be another example. Why do people submit torrents full of multiple rar files? I still have to download each volume, so why not lump it in one RAR file? If that's the case, what if I don't have WinRAR? Why not put it in a ZIP file, which is supported by Windows by default?
Why can't we have a group of common file formats to save users the trouble of hunting down the applications for each proprietary format?
Linux offers even more control. So why would they choose Windows? The average end user doesn't really care about control, they just want to get to Google as fast as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, good point - I misunderstood. Apologies.
Technically, maybe - yes the bandwidth/power/storage is available, but at what cost - which is what the parent mentioned. If your software does become incredibly popular, such as an OpenOffice.org-type suite, the bandwidth is available, but costly. Ditto for the storage space/power. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Seems that we're all picking on the UI design. I want to pick on file formats. I have an Aunt who cannot open PDF files because she didn't install Acrobat Reader. Trivial, admittedly, but it adds another layer of complexity. I can see why we need different file formats, they each have advantages and disadvantages, but why should we have to install a new application to use a different file format that somebody else has sent us? Couldn't we come up with a browser with PDF support built in (assuming there are no legal restrictions)?
A few days ago I downloaded a DAA file. Never heard of it. Wikipedia informs me it is a proprietary format used by PowerISO and offers password protection, compression, and splitting. A RAR file gives me all of the above even if I use an ISO. Secondly, the file didn't actually use any of the above "features", so it was a pointless excercise. I had to hunt down a copy of PowerISO just to burn it because Daemon Tools or Alcohol 120% doesn't support it. I have to say it is the msot pointless file format I have come across.
RAR files and ZIP files would be another example. Why do people submit torrents full of multiple rar files? I still have to download each volume, so why not lump it in one RAR file? If that's the case, what if I don't have WinRAR? Why not put it in a ZIP file, which is supported by Windows by default?
Why can't we have a group of common file formats to save users the trouble of hunting down the applications for each proprietary format?
Linux offers even more control. So why would they choose Windows? The average end user doesn't really care about control, they just want to get to Google as fast as possible.