To reiterate, first is the completely redesigned interface, and the need for retraining.
I admit that this is an obstacle. I'm just saying that the new document format is still a significant drive.
The second is the presence of a half-decent competitor: open office. So what if microsoft stops selling office 2003? Suddenly, open office, with its familiar interface and remarkably similar feature set is going to look very lucrative. And add to the fact that it's free, and there's even greater incentive to move to it if microsoft is foolish enough to stop selling office 2003 outright. Sure, it's not as polished as office 2003. But as long as it can read and write those files, it'll do. New file formats force upgrades only when there's nothing decent available to read and process the old one. Open office isn't stunning, but it'll do for the most part.
Switching to OpenOffice doesn't solve the new Office 2007 file format problem. If customers/vendors/other departments start sending you Office 2007 documents, OO isn't going to you help any. Unless OO can read/render Office 2007 documents reliably, of course. Can it?
The final, and most important factor is the same one that plagued Intel and AMD a few years back. Office 2003 is good enough. Sure, it might be lacking in a few areas compared to office 2007. But people have found ways around those shortcomings already, and having spent many years improving those workarounds, they're pretty efficient by now. Why upgrade to 2007 when the feature set of 2003 is sufficient?
You could make the exact same arguments about every other Office release. And yet, people upgraded. Why? Because others are sending you documents that you can't read reliably!
I agree. New file formats are still a pretty strong drive to upgrade. All it takes is a few people in an organization to upgrade by choice... or some customers or perhaps vendors... and suddenly everyone else has to (not necessarily, but people often find it easier to just upgrade to the latest than mess around trying to make th older version read the new docs). This works for Office. I'm not sure what will drive Vista uptake. That is, as long as Office 2007 works on XP...
I don't know about other interface builders, but Apple's allows you to create as many GUI elements programatically as you want. It is can be a pain specifying and later changing the parameters for said elements, but you can do it.
What I don't like about all the "exchange killers" that I have tried is taht they don't integrate with an external user directory. You have to recreate all of your users within the new system and sync passwords and groups. What a PITA. Any serious corporate groupware package has to integrate with ActiveDirectory or eDirectory or OpenDirectory or generic LDAP or all of the above.
Zimbra is just web based. Believe it or not, people actually LIKE Outlook. If you want an "Exchange Killer" you need to integrate well with Outlook and Evolution. I mean Calendar and all. Not just IMAP/POP.
If I am not mistaken, Hula was aiming to go all the way.
If you have your own domain (and I assume you control the mail server) you can just implement spam filtering and not bother juggling addresses. Start with Greylisting. I use the same address for everything and I barely get one spam a week.
Add in Spamassassin and you can get that down to less than 1 a day. I use the same address for everything without any trouble. I hardly get any spam. Greylisting alone is surprisingly powerful.
I'm sure they do prefer the stretched picture. That is my point. Their true (revealed) preference is for square inches, not picture quality. If they really cared about picture quality and accuracy, they'd live with the black border. I bet a 16:9 SD format would satisfy the vast majority of consumers. HD is overkill.
Is it, really? I learned English from playing computer games, and got into programming at an early age, because I had access to a PC. There are various educational computer games that help develop reading, writing, logical thinking, motor, etc. skills.
I too learned programming at an early age by having a computer available, but I also had a decent education to back it up. I'd trade my computer for a decent basic education any day.
Also, computers are what countries and economies run on,
No, they run on literacy, math, science, etc. Computers are just a tool. Nobody cares if you know how to build a MySpace page. There are far more important learning materials and resources than a PC for each kid.
and how people access the WWW (which contains a wealth of information), and communicate (email, chat, voice and video).
You can give kids access to the internet without giving them each their own computer.
Perhaps, the sooner people know how to use these things, the better.
The sooner they know how to READ, the better. It doesn't take much exposure to computers for kids to learn the basics of operation. Really, they only need to be comfortable using a computer. They can learn all the details later. Maybe it would be nice if that 1% of kids who might really benefit all had a PC, but it is hardly essential.
According to the OLPC wiki [laptop.org] the concept is more than simply giving computers to children "to somehow make them learn more." Instead they write: "While the technical aspects create a platform for change, the real benefits will come from improved educational practice enabled by immersive access to connected laptops." So, no claim that simply giving children laptops lets schools off the hook.
Sounds a lot like "to somehow make them learn more" to me. Just a lot of hand waving.
Look, I've seen some pretty poor schools in the US.. schools that can barely afford basic building maintenance and books for students. I can only assume that your average Thai school is worse off. If this is the case, giving kids computers is a waste. It is an absurd misappropriation of resources. But please, by all means, show me I am wrong. Show me that Thai schools can, on average, afford basic materials, a secure environment, decent teachers, books, etc. If the basics are covered, then start playing with laptops and such. Think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs here. It applies very well to education.
I didn't miss the point. I just think the point is trivial and oversimplified. What if I associate a placed item with a "bad" character in a program that I otherwise liked? Just because I like the program doesn't mean I am going to associate everything I see in that program with "good" feelings. Any program worth watching is going to evoke relatively complex emotions, thoughts, and associations. It isn't so easy to predict how a viewer will associate things they see with internal feelings.
I'm sure the money would be much better spent on basic education and materials than on computer hardware. The very idea that giving computers to children will somehow make them learn more is just stupid. Maybe there is a very small minority of kids that would take the computer and hack around and learn stuff, but the vast majority of the kids are going abuse the computers (both physically and software-wise) and not get anything out of them but smoke.
Still, it seems trivial. I mean, we all see products "placed" in our lives every day. I can't imagine that the association with a movie would be significant unless, like I said, the product was specifically featured. What you are calling product placement is little more than realistic background.
I always wondered just how effective that kind of placement is. I know there are certain cases where actors can feature a product such as James Bond driving around in a certain kind of car or something, but for normal stuff like items of a shelf in the background, it seems so trivial. Hardly worth paying extra for HD just so people can read the labels better.
I dunno, I sometimes wonder if most people even care. I've seen far too many people watch SD programming all stretched out on their new wide screen TV to believe that they actually give a shit about extra resolution. They just go to the store and buy whatever teh salesman is pushing that day. Nothing too expensive, mind you, but nothing too cheap (SD) either. They pay extra for the illusion of higher quality and then go home and set their TV to stretch an SD picture to fit the 16:9 screen... like they dont' even notice that it is distorted! WTF?
Because it is a different format and I generally don't get to know specific people because there are so many of them. I am rarely responding to the same person twice. Rather than having personal conversations, I'm having a public discussion.
Problem I have with SL and other "social" games is that I am just not a social person. The stereotype of the "geek" is that he (or she) woudl like to be social but is just too shy in person to pull it off.. therefore online games provide an outlet. But at least in my case, it isn't true. I am not shy. I just don't have much to say to people in real life and I don't have much to say to them online (Slashdot and other written forums excluded).
Apparently, you've never used Vista on a laptop, because that is exactly what it does. XP can do something similar, too (set a hibernate time greater than your sleep time - you'll notice that the laptop wakes and hibernates at your set time).
I'm not talking about what happens when you let it sit idle. I'm talking about how many different options there are in the "Shutdown" menu and what happens when you either click on the "sleep" option or close the cover of a laptop. Users, in general, should not be presented with two very similar (and therefore confusing) options like "sleep" and "hibernate." Remember the old DOS prompt on disk error, "Abort? Retry? Fail?" I never did figure out the difference between Abort and Fail. Bad interface.
And where would you put the additional option to show both the sleep and hibernate options the users who know the difference between them and need a specific one?
If you REALLY needed it, you could create a script/icon that runs the appropriate command (assuming you can initiate such event from the commandline). UIs in general need to be simplified, not crammed with every possible option that a user might ever need. Microsoft needs to figure this out.
I carry a laptop around in a bag. If I am carrying it downstairs for a conference, sleep is fine. If I am carrying it to lunch, hibernate is better as the bag gets really damn hot when it is sleeping.
Both cases are covered by my proposed single "sleep" option. If you are just carrying it downstairs, your laptop will only be sleeping when you open it 5 minutes later. If you wait longer, it will be hibernating.
As an aside, your computer should not get that hot when sleeping. If it does, there is something wrong. It isn't really sleeping. Sleep mode should not use much power at all. But maybe that is just with Macs...
Slashdot Mirror
I admit that this is an obstacle. I'm just saying that the new document format is still a significant drive.
Switching to OpenOffice doesn't solve the new Office 2007 file format problem. If customers/vendors/other departments start sending you Office 2007 documents, OO isn't going to you help any. Unless OO can read/render Office 2007 documents reliably, of course. Can it?
You could make the exact same arguments about every other Office release. And yet, people upgraded. Why? Because others are sending you documents that you can't read reliably!
-matthew
And more greenhouse gas emissions!
I agree. New file formats are still a pretty strong drive to upgrade. All it takes is a few people in an organization to upgrade by choice... or some customers or perhaps vendors... and suddenly everyone else has to (not necessarily, but people often find it easier to just upgrade to the latest than mess around trying to make th older version read the new docs). This works for Office. I'm not sure what will drive Vista uptake. That is, as long as Office 2007 works on XP...
-matthew
I don't know about other interface builders, but Apple's allows you to create as many GUI elements programatically as you want. It is can be a pain specifying and later changing the parameters for said elements, but you can do it.
-matthew
So, um, it is the modern equivalent of the Coleco Adam, then?
-matthew
I'm right with you. Flow is much more "art" than "game."
-matthew
Do you use Outlook for shared calendars too? Or do you just connect to the Zimbra server with IMAP?
-matthew
What I don't like about all the "exchange killers" that I have tried is taht they don't integrate with an external user directory. You have to recreate all of your users within the new system and sync passwords and groups. What a PITA. Any serious corporate groupware package has to integrate with ActiveDirectory or eDirectory or OpenDirectory or generic LDAP or all of the above.
-matthew
Zimbra is just web based. Believe it or not, people actually LIKE Outlook. If you want an "Exchange Killer" you need to integrate well with Outlook and Evolution. I mean Calendar and all. Not just IMAP/POP.
If I am not mistaken, Hula was aiming to go all the way.
-matthew
If you have your own domain (and I assume you control the mail server) you can just implement spam filtering and not bother juggling addresses. Start with Greylisting. I use the same address for everything and I barely get one spam a week.
-matthew
Add in Spamassassin and you can get that down to less than 1 a day. I use the same address for everything without any trouble. I hardly get any spam. Greylisting alone is surprisingly powerful.
-matthew
Or you could just use some decent spam filtering and not worry about it at all.
-matthew
Perfect example of what I am talking about. Thank you.
-matthew
I'm sure they do prefer the stretched picture. That is my point. Their true (revealed) preference is for square inches, not picture quality. If they really cared about picture quality and accuracy, they'd live with the black border. I bet a 16:9 SD format would satisfy the vast majority of consumers. HD is overkill.
-matthew
I too learned programming at an early age by having a computer available, but I also had a decent education to back it up. I'd trade my computer for a decent basic education any day.
No, they run on literacy, math, science, etc. Computers are just a tool. Nobody cares if you know how to build a MySpace page. There are far more important learning materials and resources than a PC for each kid.
You can give kids access to the internet without giving them each their own computer.
The sooner they know how to READ, the better. It doesn't take much exposure to computers for kids to learn the basics of operation. Really, they only need to be comfortable using a computer. They can learn all the details later. Maybe it would be nice if that 1% of kids who might really benefit all had a PC, but it is hardly essential.
-matthew
Sounds a lot like "to somehow make them learn more" to me. Just a lot of hand waving.
Look, I've seen some pretty poor schools in the US.. schools that can barely afford basic building maintenance and books for students. I can only assume that your average Thai school is worse off. If this is the case, giving kids computers is a waste. It is an absurd misappropriation of resources. But please, by all means, show me I am wrong. Show me that Thai schools can, on average, afford basic materials, a secure environment, decent teachers, books, etc. If the basics are covered, then start playing with laptops and such. Think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs here. It applies very well to education.
-matthew
I know a fair amount about conditioning, thanks.
I didn't miss the point. I just think the point is trivial and oversimplified. What if I associate a placed item with a "bad" character in a program that I otherwise liked? Just because I like the program doesn't mean I am going to associate everything I see in that program with "good" feelings. Any program worth watching is going to evoke relatively complex emotions, thoughts, and associations. It isn't so easy to predict how a viewer will associate things they see with internal feelings.
-matthew
I'm sure the money would be much better spent on basic education and materials than on computer hardware. The very idea that giving computers to children will somehow make them learn more is just stupid. Maybe there is a very small minority of kids that would take the computer and hack around and learn stuff, but the vast majority of the kids are going abuse the computers (both physically and software-wise) and not get anything out of them but smoke.
-matthew
Still, it seems trivial. I mean, we all see products "placed" in our lives every day. I can't imagine that the association with a movie would be significant unless, like I said, the product was specifically featured. What you are calling product placement is little more than realistic background.
-matthew
I always wondered just how effective that kind of placement is. I know there are certain cases where actors can feature a product such as James Bond driving around in a certain kind of car or something, but for normal stuff like items of a shelf in the background, it seems so trivial. Hardly worth paying extra for HD just so people can read the labels better.
-matthew
I dunno, I sometimes wonder if most people even care. I've seen far too many people watch SD programming all stretched out on their new wide screen TV to believe that they actually give a shit about extra resolution. They just go to the store and buy whatever teh salesman is pushing that day. Nothing too expensive, mind you, but nothing too cheap (SD) either. They pay extra for the illusion of higher quality and then go home and set their TV to stretch an SD picture to fit the 16:9 screen... like they dont' even notice that it is distorted! WTF?
-matthew
Because it is a different format and I generally don't get to know specific people because there are so many of them. I am rarely responding to the same person twice. Rather than having personal conversations, I'm having a public discussion.
-matthew
Problem I have with SL and other "social" games is that I am just not a social person. The stereotype of the "geek" is that he (or she) woudl like to be social but is just too shy in person to pull it off.. therefore online games provide an outlet. But at least in my case, it isn't true. I am not shy. I just don't have much to say to people in real life and I don't have much to say to them online (Slashdot and other written forums excluded).
-matthew
I'm not talking about what happens when you let it sit idle. I'm talking about how many different options there are in the "Shutdown" menu and what happens when you either click on the "sleep" option or close the cover of a laptop. Users, in general, should not be presented with two very similar (and therefore confusing) options like "sleep" and "hibernate." Remember the old DOS prompt on disk error, "Abort? Retry? Fail?" I never did figure out the difference between Abort and Fail. Bad interface.
-matthew
If you REALLY needed it, you could create a script/icon that runs the appropriate command (assuming you can initiate such event from the commandline). UIs in general need to be simplified, not crammed with every possible option that a user might ever need. Microsoft needs to figure this out.
Both cases are covered by my proposed single "sleep" option. If you are just carrying it downstairs, your laptop will only be sleeping when you open it 5 minutes later. If you wait longer, it will be hibernating.
As an aside, your computer should not get that hot when sleeping. If it does, there is something wrong. It isn't really sleeping. Sleep mode should not use much power at all. But maybe that is just with Macs...
-matthew