Well, I don't think that Microsoft really feels they are losing ground. It isn't a matter of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." It is just a matter of selling as many copies of Office as possible. That is why they sell a Mac version. There's lots of money in it. And the Mac version is actually a very nice product. So it isn't like they are trying to "poison" the platform.
That said, I must admit that I don't think it is a good move on MS's part. They are sacraficing Windows sales for Office sales to some degree. Could they really be that short sighted? Having such a good version of MS Office for the Mac makes the platform that much more appealing. "Switchers" don't have to completely give up what they are accustomed to. I imagine Office for Linux (if it were any good) would have the same effect. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Perhaps not the geeks at home, but I imagine in most work environments, MS Office would be desirable. Frankly, given a choice between OpenOffice and MS Office for Linux, I'd probably go with MS Office At least if it was done well, as it is on the Mac. Though I probably wouldn't personally pay for it. I guess it would come down to whether or not I could snag a copy from work.
Of course, I'm not a big *Office product user anyway, so I guess my opinion doesn't count for much.:-)
Unless you can pull out huge chunks of the metals at one go without much work or processing, I seriously doubt it. Just getting a couple people on the surface to walk around a bit is massively expensive... forget about a sustained effort with mining equipment, life support and everything else you'd need.
Ok, but let me simplify the equation for you a bit. For the forseeable future (as in, as long as you'll be alieve at least) the energy comes from fossil fuels. Either oil, coal, or natural gas
Really? I'm pretty sure the electricity I use comes from hydropower. But maybe those big ol' dams are just for show.
Believe it or not some people actually have a conscience and specifically gear business decisions toward the "greater good." Not every entrepreneur is amoraly looking to make a buck wherever and however they can. Sure, they make a buck like every other capitalist, but they choose to do it in a way that benefits society and the environment. They should be commended for it. On the other end of the spectrum we have spammers who should be spit on. See how that works? You encourage people who find the "good" niches and discourage people who find harmful niches. I'm not saying we should necessarily put it into law, but certainly a little nod to the "good" capitalists is called for.
The problem is that you are thinking in terms of energy and not raw materials. Depending on where the energy is coming from, using more in recycling vs. production may not be a problem. If the raw materials are in limited supply or dumping space is limited, the recycling still makes sense if you can recycle significant quantities. Although I didn't watch the Bullshit episode.They may have covered more than just the energy aspect.
The paper issue is interesting though because you might consider discarded paper as a carbon sink.
As for not burying plastic... What do you suggest we do with it? Fill desert areas with trash? What kind of chemicals does decaying plastic leave behind?
I like a debate and I think you do too. Please keep ad hominem comments on Digg
Just becuase you were offended by something I said doesn't mean I made an ad hominem. If you were refering to my question of how old you are, it was a legitimate question. You sound young. I wanted to know what your experience was with actual users in a work environment. But whatever. Moving on...
Apple is doing better than ever, but let's not buy Apple's iHype.
See, I don't know what that means. You keep making vague statements like that without any support or explanation. Apple IS doing better than ever. And people are switching. It is a great example of people movign from one "traditional software" to another. So what is this "iHype" that I shouldn't buy?
The Linux phenomenon is changing an entire market. Google certainly is one of the variables in Microsoft's current Fear Equation. So, why is Microsoft scared, in your opinion?
Microsoft is scared because they don't have much more room to grow on the desktop, they are getting no end of bad press, and people are switching to alternatives like Apple. Microsoft is not overwhelmingly dominating new markets. In ahort, they are finding that they have to actually compete for $$$. And if they are competing in the office software market, the competition is coming from OpenOffice, not apps like Google spreadsheets.
Now, if you want to change the goal posts a littel and say it is FOSS that is hurting Microsoft and other established companies, I'd probably agree with you, but we were talking about Google and web based applications. I consider Linux to be "traditional software" in the sense that it is not browser based. Even Linux users use a ton of desktop software (GNOME and KDE are full of apps and utilities).
Perhaps you could elaborate on the link between Google and FOSS. Because I'm not seeing it.
I am saying that Google is making plenty o' money and and doesn't ~have~ to turn everything into instant cash -- it just has to be done well and fit into a Big Strategy. Google's backing several strategic ops.
And those would be...? Maybe you should not buy Google's gHype.
Traditional Software is not going away... but Miss Redmond ain't the only pretty girl at the party anymore. And Miss Redmond's daddy has a shotgun.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what that means.
Well, yes, you keep repeating it. It wouldn't be the "Ford SUV Fallacy", would it? Just kiddin'.:o)
Whatever. It was a good analogy and you just ignored it. The point still stands. History tells us that companies which try to break into a well established market by only implmenting 5% of the expected functionality either fail completely or remain in the margins. Can you refute this?
You don't have to ~take over~ a market to do some damage to a competitor. That would be crude.
But you haven't established that apps like Google spreadsheets are doing *any* damage to the competition. You just keep making vague allusions to made up terms like Google's "Big Strategy" and "iHype" without ever really saying anything.
What I got tired of was worrying about my stats and when I was going to level up. I had to install a mod to slow leveling down just so I could keep things under control or I was going to end up turning the difficulty way down. You really shouldn't have to stand there and tank a crab for 10 minutes while wearing heavy armor just so you can get a +5 to endurance the next level up. Oh, and then there is standing there casting the same spell over and over again so you can increate some stat that will give you more intelligence. Well, maybe you don't have to do it. I just heard the game gets REALLY hard later if you are not careful about how you level.
Other than that, I thought the game was pretty engaging (I didn't finish it). I never ran out of things to do. Always had a quest list with several uncompleted items. The game gets much more interesting when you start making spells and enchanting items. Oh well.
Take a look at the current technology. I think your FOREVER is arriving. When I see what I can do with a good browser now, all I really need is a server. But this computing architecture needs a ~trusted~ host. This is why Google needs to work hard to maintain its Do No Evil reputation... and why Microsoft's universal Do Lots Of Bungling reputation is going to hurt them more than ever in the modern Web market. (You can thank me for not saying "Web 2.0".)
When Microsoft bungles, people switch to Apple.. and sometimes Linux. Google has nothing to do with it. "Traditional software" is here to stay.
I'll forgive your Ford SUV analogy just so we can keep this going.;o) The pressures that are driving Linux's growth on servers and desktops are changing Microsoft's bully status on the playground. Google is building momentum. I am not saying that Microsoft is going to go bankrupt but I ~am~ saying that their revenue model is in palpable danger of bringing in less money.
Google is primarily building momentum in search and advertising. Google's seconary projects are not doing particularly well. So what in particular is Microsoft in danger of? Is Gmail taking users from Hotmail? I'm sure Microsoft is quaking in their boots.
Finance is Excel's strongest user-base.
Dude, Excel is used everywhere. You'd be surprised how some people utilize the features of Excel. And like I said, it only takes one person in a company to use those features to justify a site license.
No offense, but I have to ask: How old are you? Have you ever worked in a corporate environment before? Do you not understand that a good number of people actually take advantage of desktop software and its functionality? Microsoft doesn't bloat their products for nothing. Don't you think that if they could get away with only implementing the top 5% of functionality, they would? Didn't they try something like that with Microsoft Works? It didn't sell well.
Microsoft will continue to make money there unless a server-based spreadsheet with enough functionality to meet people's needs is brought in.
You say that, but it is utterly unsupported. It is an often repeated fallacy (it has a name which I can't remember) which states that you can take over an established market by implementing only 5% of the most used featuers and selling cheaper. It doesn't work.
I don't think this is impossible. And OpenOffice is getting better... and getting backing.
1) OpenOffice is not web based 2) Has nothing to do with Google 3) OpenOffice implements far more than 5% of MS Office's functionality
And it STILL hasn't taken much of the market. What does this tell you? If a free and highly functional alternative to Office is having trouble competing, how in the world do you think some pathetic little browser based spreadsheet will do much better?
If a Web application can do 100% of the 5% of functionality of Excel or Photoshop that most users use, and the intermediary software is free and cross-platform, what do you think is going to happen to revenue for these products?
People have been saying something along those lines FOREVER about Microsoft products.. "All you need to do is implement the top 5% of functionality and you can capture the market with a cheaper/free product." Well, it doesn't work that way. It is a fallacy. What people need and what people want are two different things. For example, very few people NEED a brand new Ford Expedition SUV which costs around $30,000, but they're buying cars like that left and right. Because they can (with longer loans). And because they might one day actually use the features. Same with MS Office.
Also, you underestimate how many features your average corproate office uses from Excel. There are some pretty sophisticate spreadsheets out there. And if even ONE person in that office uses those advanced features that Google doesn't provide, then everyone needs Excel. And why not? You can get volume/site licenses. And then people get home and they want MS Office because they either bring work home with them or maybe that is just what they know.. or, again, they might want to have the functionality there if for some reason they want to use it in the future.
Free/cheap Spreadsheet progams have been around for years, yet hardly anyone uses them. Everyone just gets MS Office which covers just about anything they will ever want to do with a document.
Actually, their approach isnt that much different from Microsoft's, at least from an abstract view. They are slowly accumulating more and more useful products, and over time this will bring them to a critical mass.
I think the argument is that they aren't really so useful.. at least if you judge usefullness by success.
Once they surpass this, then more and more of their "other tools" will be the tools of choice in their specific areas, and then Google will be a monster in the marketplace. The trick will be to not then turn around and be "evil" (i.e. charge for services that were once free because you can, etc).
The web is far too volatile for Google to grab the marketplace like that with only maginally useful apps and services. Users can simply type in a different URL and use a competing service. There is nothing keeping people using Google maps, for example. If a similarlly powerful online map system came up, people would just switch to that. I would. I have no loyalty to Google. I'm not paying them any money. I certainly don't have any kind of service contract with them.
Even if your product is a billion times better, more stable and whatnot.
For reference, see Windows and Linux.
With Google being service oriented, users are not so much locked into a particular product like they are with their OS. If all the customer has to do is type in a different URL to get a comepeting service, you don't have lock in. The web is extremely volatile that way.
Google is building highly usable applications that are not OS-dependent. THAT is what is scaring the traditional software makers.
Anyone who says that doesn't know a thing about the "traditional software" business. Also, If you think Google spreadsheets is going to make Excel obsolete, you've obviously never actually used a spreadsheet for anything more complicated than min-maxing a role playing character or managing a grocery shopping list.
But hey, what do I know? Maybe Google will come out with gPhotoshop for the browser and photographers will just boot up a BrowserOS and surf to gphotoshop.google.com to get work done.
Parent is completely right! My parents wouldn't dream of switching to Linux because they use Outlook and are tied down in their ways. However, I've gotten them to switch over to Firefox, which is a big step in the right direction.
So you are actually disagreeing with the GP. You are saying that, in the case of your parents, it is OSS and not Google that is making the OS less relevent.
I've weaned myself off all those nasty OS-related programs (except for WinAmp). The feeling is great--I can sit down at just about any computer in the world, and do everything from a browser and maybe a console. I could care less if it's Windows or Linux or OS/2 (Warpzilla)!
Sounds like you dont' use a computer to get real work done.
These analysts miss the point. The big win for Google is to replace Micro$oft as the default platform. As Google tools, google desktop and of course Google search as the homepage become the default start point for users, the operating system becomes less relevant.
Oh, please! The kinds of things that Google coudl provide from a web browser could easily be duplicated (and indeed already exist) on all major platforms. It isn't like LInux users, for example, were not reading email or using spreadsheets before Google introduced gmail and spreadsheets.
What makes the operating system "less releveant" are companies like Apple who are actually taking market share from MS. Once the monoculture is broken, everything will fall into place. While Google may profit from this shift, they are certainly NOT the engine driving it.
Put another way, once people are Google-centric, they can use a Mac or a "GooglePC" or anything else. Linux anyone?
So instead of a Microsoft monoculture, you want a Google monoculture?
Citrix is nice, but it is not the answer to everything. When the users run intensive or inefficient applications, it can be a severe performance problem. The solution he has in mind does not have that problem, because his applications run locally so they utilize the local resources available on the desktop.
Some old fashioned roaming profiles and ghost (or some other imaging solution) action would seem to be the perfect compromize. Local CPU gets utilized. Network traffic is minimal. Users get good performance. Users can move to any machine with the proper appliations installed. A machien can be rebuilt in under 10 minutes. Instead of maintaining an image for EVERY SINGLE USER, you only maintain an image for every *type* of workstation in your company. Honestly, I can't figure out how this solution was overlooked.
Where I work I have had significant trouble with Vmware images used on different makes/models of desktops. For instance, one XP image I made on a Dell Dimension 620 would come up with some random error when loaded on a Dimension 270, and vice versa. This problem is extremely prominent with Vista builds, as well. There are a lot of unknowns such as that when considering such a large-scale use of Vmware.
That doesn't make sense. VMware should provide exactly the same virtual hardware to the guest no matter what physical computer you run the image on. In fact, that is one of the biggest selling points for VMWare.
Are you creating the VMware image FROM the Dimension 620, or running a fresh "virtual" install of XP?
It just so happens that Beelzebot is a good friend of mine. Well, that is if you define "friend" to mean "owner of one's soul" and "good" to mean "evil."
A year just isn't near enough with a violin to get the basics. Three years seems more realistic because that's when the different teaching styles of what they emphasize seems to level out. But depending on the teaching style, some will be able to play by pure memory, some won't even be able to play anything by memory, and others will be able to play some by memory but will be able to improvise some. It really does matter in the teaching style.
But in the end, they're all playing something that is predetermined... even if it is with some embellishment. How many violin students can improvise on the spot? How many can just "jam" with other musicians? Does that even happen? Is it even realistic? I don't know much about violin, but I did play guitar on and off for some years I noted a lot of people who could learn to play their favorite songs given enough practice, but ask them to Just Play and they were dumbfounded. Like, "What do you mean 'Just Play?' Play what?"
Learning the rules is one thing, figuring out how to break them properly is quite another.;-)
-matthew
Re:Partial credit
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
When it comes to music, I think it makes a big difference what kind of music it is. If we're talking about just playing written music with accuracy and precision, I'm sure most people could do it by learning the "rules" and practicing a lot. Starting young also helps. But there is a more subjective aspect to music that goes beyond simply being able to manipulate the instrument. Can a musician improvise? Does the musician have innate rhythm? How about "soul?"
It has nothing to do with how long it takes to learn music theory. Give an instrument to two people and teach them how ot play it. Give them, say, a year to learn the basics. They'll probably both be able to play some songs with similar skill. Now, take away their sheet music. Tell them to play something original.. improvise. I guarantee you you'll separate the naturals from the "robots" in no time. THAT is what innate ability is about.
I like your computer comparison. A computer can be programmed to play just about any music you tell it to play. I have yet to hear a computer compose (good) original music, improvise, and adapt to the playing of others in real time. Question is, how does one quantify this so it can be studied?
Good point with the virtualization, might work. But..if people got it working there on their beige boxes...why would they want to drop one to three grand to get about the same thing on ac hardware? A small percent speed bump?
The performance of a desktop OS inside VMWare can never compete with the real thing. It would be a lot more than a small speed bump to get Apple hardware. Come to think of it, that may be an argument against releasing a VMware image. People might get the impression that OS X is slow when they run it in virtualization.
And $3000? Are you kidding me? How long have you been out of the Mac market? Maybe if you're looking for a quad core tower or the high end MacBook Pro you will shell out three grand. Although even the base quad core (Xeon processors) Mac Pro is only $2500 http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=AFBB8654&nclm=MacPro An Intel Mac Mini is under a grand and it is plenty fast. And the iMacs are not too shabby either. This would cover 80% of PC users easily.
I ran apple hardware for over a decade, but then I discovered linux and the GPL. I'll struggle by with that, and build my own systems. I *used* to pay the premium but I see no big reason to do that now, I don't have any critical "mac only" apps to run. Windows was never an option for me really, not a lot of interest since DOS on a 286 days, man I hated that crap, switched to mac first time I tried, I mean I bought the box on the spot...but that was then, this is now. I like GUI, and sure am glad a lot of smart devs decided it might be a good idea to use it with linux. What you can get now is *plenty* good enough for my purposes. If there was a 200-300 buck new mac, just a plain jane tower that was upgradeable, I might try it again, but not for more, no real purpose nor need, and I build my systems on the cheap.
Wow, the exact opposite of me. I used PCs almost exclusively for what must be 20 years. I never did much with Windows on my own computers. I went right from DOS to Linux about 12 years ago (my God, have I been using Linux that long!?). About a year ago I took a job at an art college where my desktop is a Mac. I was tempted to install Linux PPC on it (I'm sysadmin, I can run whatever I want)... but I decided that i would give OS X a serious try.
So far it has worked out really well. I think I am a "switcher" now. I haven't rejected Linux. I still use Linux and FreeBSD for servers, but I just can't get myself away from the elegant design of the OS X desktop (and the hardware itself). It is just so slick. I think it is totally awesome that I can install a program simply by dropping it in/Applications. No hassle with packages and dependencies. No worrying about where an application is putting files. Upgrade Firefox? Just drag a new version into/Applications.
After 20 years of fscking with PC hardware (jumpers, IRQs, incompatable chipsets, funky drivers, etc), this is a well earned break. I used to build PC system. And I built my current Mac. I went out and bought a used G4 tower (AGP graphics), installed a 1Ghz upgrade module that I got a good deal on, and installed a modded NVIDIA Gefore 3 from a PC. I'm good to go for now. I've actually got a 2 Ghz P4 PC sitting here that hasn't been seriously used in months. I'd rather use the Mac even if it is like 1/4 the speed. I do a lot of Ruby on Rails development and I just love Textmate.;-)
The "upgradability" of a plain jane PC tower is overrated. I've found that any time I do an upgrade lately on a PC, I end up just gutting it. New CPU, new motherboard (because new CPUs use different sockets), new RAM (because new motherboards use different RAM), new video card (AGP is obsolete), new harddrive (because, hell, why not?
It's where we keep our comedians, and our good beer.
And wood. Don't forget about the wood. Yeah, we have some here, but have you ever seen what deforestation looks like? I'd just assume take their wood and keep our forests where they are.
As far as good beer goes though, we got *penty* of that up here in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. There's a microbrewery every 2 blocks (even in rural areas!). I haven't even tried them all yet. No need to go to Canada for good beer.
That's easy enough for them to address-no support on anything but mac hardware.
People will expect support if there is any hint from Apple that OS X will work on a beige box PC. Doesn't matter if there is some fine print somehere that says "only supported on offical Mac hardware."
ut I also doubt they will do it at this time, but eventually they will, as open source keeps chipping away at all aspects of the computer environment. Might be some many years down the road but eventually they'll do it. They've shown that they will make hard decisions, with good, bad or "meh' as the outcome, but they have proven they can alter their business direction. Most likely it will occur once their OS will boot due to third party enthusiast's work on random x86 hardware, which it eventually will do in a non painful manner. I don't think they'll be able to prevent that, so their hand will be forced.
As long as Apple maintains the offical line that OS X doesn't run on non-Apple hardware, they will not be forced to do anything. Let the hackers and enthusiast's run OS X on beige boxes if they want. They are not the kind of people to expect support when none is offered and they are unlikely to generate bad press complaining about broken divers or whatever.
It might be nice, however, if Apple allowed OS X to run in VMware so that people could get a "taste" of OS X before switching. A cheap, downloadable VMware Player image would be interesting. I know lots of people who would give that a try.... Linux AND Windows users. The nice thing about that idea is that it is practically guaranteed to "Just Work" like OS X is supposed to. No problems with drivers and whatnot. VMWare would benefit as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't think that Microsoft really feels they are losing ground. It isn't a matter of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." It is just a matter of selling as many copies of Office as possible. That is why they sell a Mac version. There's lots of money in it. And the Mac version is actually a very nice product. So it isn't like they are trying to "poison" the platform.
That said, I must admit that I don't think it is a good move on MS's part. They are sacraficing Windows sales for Office sales to some degree. Could they really be that short sighted? Having such a good version of MS Office for the Mac makes the platform that much more appealing. "Switchers" don't have to completely give up what they are accustomed to. I imagine Office for Linux (if it were any good) would have the same effect. Doesn't make much sense to me.
-matthew
Perhaps not the geeks at home, but I imagine in most work environments, MS Office would be desirable. Frankly, given a choice between OpenOffice and MS Office for Linux, I'd probably go with MS Office At least if it was done well, as it is on the Mac. Though I probably wouldn't personally pay for it. I guess it would come down to whether or not I could snag a copy from work.
:-)
Of course, I'm not a big *Office product user anyway, so I guess my opinion doesn't count for much.
-matthew
Unless you can pull out huge chunks of the metals at one go without much work or processing, I seriously doubt it. Just getting a couple people on the surface to walk around a bit is massively expensive... forget about a sustained effort with mining equipment, life support and everything else you'd need.
-matthew
Really? I'm pretty sure the electricity I use comes from hydropower. But maybe those big ol' dams are just for show.
-matthew
Believe it or not some people actually have a conscience and specifically gear business decisions toward the "greater good." Not every entrepreneur is amoraly looking to make a buck wherever and however they can. Sure, they make a buck like every other capitalist, but they choose to do it in a way that benefits society and the environment. They should be commended for it. On the other end of the spectrum we have spammers who should be spit on. See how that works? You encourage people who find the "good" niches and discourage people who find harmful niches. I'm not saying we should necessarily put it into law, but certainly a little nod to the "good" capitalists is called for.
The problem is that you are thinking in terms of energy and not raw materials. Depending on where the energy is coming from, using more in recycling vs. production may not be a problem. If the raw materials are in limited supply or dumping space is limited, the recycling still makes sense if you can recycle significant quantities. Although I didn't watch the Bullshit episode.They may have covered more than just the energy aspect.
The paper issue is interesting though because you might consider discarded paper as a carbon sink.
As for not burying plastic... What do you suggest we do with it? Fill desert areas with trash? What kind of chemicals does decaying plastic leave behind?
-matthew
Just becuase you were offended by something I said doesn't mean I made an ad hominem. If you were refering to my question of how old you are, it was a legitimate question. You sound young. I wanted to know what your experience was with actual users in a work environment. But whatever. Moving on...
See, I don't know what that means. You keep making vague statements like that without any support or explanation. Apple IS doing better than ever. And people are switching. It is a great example of people movign from one "traditional software" to another. So what is this "iHype" that I shouldn't buy?
Microsoft is scared because they don't have much more room to grow on the desktop, they are getting no end of bad press, and people are switching to alternatives like Apple. Microsoft is not overwhelmingly dominating new markets. In ahort, they are finding that they have to actually compete for $$$. And if they are competing in the office software market, the competition is coming from OpenOffice, not apps like Google spreadsheets.
Now, if you want to change the goal posts a littel and say it is FOSS that is hurting Microsoft and other established companies, I'd probably agree with you, but we were talking about Google and web based applications. I consider Linux to be "traditional software" in the sense that it is not browser based. Even Linux users use a ton of desktop software (GNOME and KDE are full of apps and utilities).
Perhaps you could elaborate on the link between Google and FOSS. Because I'm not seeing it.
And those would be...? Maybe you should not buy Google's gHype.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what that means.
Whatever. It was a good analogy and you just ignored it. The point still stands. History tells us that companies which try to break into a well established market by only implmenting 5% of the expected functionality either fail completely or remain in the margins. Can you refute this?
But you haven't established that apps like Google spreadsheets are doing *any* damage to the competition. You just keep making vague allusions to made up terms like Google's "Big Strategy" and "iHype" without ever really saying anything.
-matthew
What I got tired of was worrying about my stats and when I was going to level up. I had to install a mod to slow leveling down just so I could keep things under control or I was going to end up turning the difficulty way down. You really shouldn't have to stand there and tank a crab for 10 minutes while wearing heavy armor just so you can get a +5 to endurance the next level up. Oh, and then there is standing there casting the same spell over and over again so you can increate some stat that will give you more intelligence. Well, maybe you don't have to do it. I just heard the game gets REALLY hard later if you are not careful about how you level.
Other than that, I thought the game was pretty engaging (I didn't finish it). I never ran out of things to do. Always had a quest list with several uncompleted items. The game gets much more interesting when you start making spells and enchanting items. Oh well.
When Microsoft bungles, people switch to Apple.. and sometimes Linux. Google has nothing to do with it. "Traditional software" is here to stay.
Google is primarily building momentum in search and advertising. Google's seconary projects are not doing particularly well. So what in particular is Microsoft in danger of? Is Gmail taking users from Hotmail? I'm sure Microsoft is quaking in their boots.
Dude, Excel is used everywhere. You'd be surprised how some people utilize the features of Excel. And like I said, it only takes one person in a company to use those features to justify a site license.
No offense, but I have to ask: How old are you? Have you ever worked in a corporate environment before? Do you not understand that a good number of people actually take advantage of desktop software and its functionality? Microsoft doesn't bloat their products for nothing. Don't you think that if they could get away with only implementing the top 5% of functionality, they would? Didn't they try something like that with Microsoft Works? It didn't sell well.
You say that, but it is utterly unsupported. It is an often repeated fallacy (it has a name which I can't remember) which states that you can take over an established market by implementing only 5% of the most used featuers and selling cheaper. It doesn't work.
1) OpenOffice is not web based
2) Has nothing to do with Google
3) OpenOffice implements far more than 5% of MS Office's functionality
And it STILL hasn't taken much of the market. What does this tell you? If a free and highly functional alternative to Office is having trouble competing, how in the world do you think some pathetic little browser based spreadsheet will do much better?
-matthew
People have been saying something along those lines FOREVER about Microsoft products.. "All you need to do is implement the top 5% of functionality and you can capture the market with a cheaper/free product." Well, it doesn't work that way. It is a fallacy. What people need and what people want are two different things. For example, very few people NEED a brand new Ford Expedition SUV which costs around $30,000, but they're buying cars like that left and right. Because they can (with longer loans). And because they might one day actually use the features. Same with MS Office.
Also, you underestimate how many features your average corproate office uses from Excel. There are some pretty sophisticate spreadsheets out there. And if even ONE person in that office uses those advanced features that Google doesn't provide, then everyone needs Excel. And why not? You can get volume/site licenses. And then people get home and they want MS Office because they either bring work home with them or maybe that is just what they know.. or, again, they might want to have the functionality there if for some reason they want to use it in the future.
Free/cheap Spreadsheet progams have been around for years, yet hardly anyone uses them. Everyone just gets MS Office which covers just about anything they will ever want to do with a document.
-matthew
I think the argument is that they aren't really so useful.. at least if you judge usefullness by success.
The web is far too volatile for Google to grab the marketplace like that with only maginally useful apps and services. Users can simply type in a different URL and use a competing service. There is nothing keeping people using Google maps, for example. If a similarlly powerful online map system came up, people would just switch to that. I would. I have no loyalty to Google. I'm not paying them any money. I certainly don't have any kind of service contract with them.
-matthew
With Google being service oriented, users are not so much locked into a particular product like they are with their OS. If all the customer has to do is type in a different URL to get a comepeting service, you don't have lock in. The web is extremely volatile that way.
-matthew
Anyone who says that doesn't know a thing about the "traditional software" business. Also, If you think Google spreadsheets is going to make Excel obsolete, you've obviously never actually used a spreadsheet for anything more complicated than min-maxing a role playing character or managing a grocery shopping list.
But hey, what do I know? Maybe Google will come out with gPhotoshop for the browser and photographers will just boot up a BrowserOS and surf to gphotoshop.google.com to get work done.
-matthew
So you are actually disagreeing with the GP. You are saying that, in the case of your parents, it is OSS and not Google that is making the OS less relevent.
Sounds like you dont' use a computer to get real work done.
-matthew
Oh, please! The kinds of things that Google coudl provide from a web browser could easily be duplicated (and indeed already exist) on all major platforms. It isn't like LInux users, for example, were not reading email or using spreadsheets before Google introduced gmail and spreadsheets.
What makes the operating system "less releveant" are companies like Apple who are actually taking market share from MS. Once the monoculture is broken, everything will fall into place. While Google may profit from this shift, they are certainly NOT the engine driving it.
So instead of a Microsoft monoculture, you want a Google monoculture?
-matthew
Some old fashioned roaming profiles and ghost (or some other imaging solution) action would seem to be the perfect compromize. Local CPU gets utilized. Network traffic is minimal. Users get good performance. Users can move to any machine with the proper appliations installed. A machien can be rebuilt in under 10 minutes. Instead of maintaining an image for EVERY SINGLE USER, you only maintain an image for every *type* of workstation in your company. Honestly, I can't figure out how this solution was overlooked.
-matthew
That doesn't make sense. VMware should provide exactly the same virtual hardware to the guest no matter what physical computer you run the image on. In fact, that is one of the biggest selling points for VMWare.
Are you creating the VMware image FROM the Dimension 620, or running a fresh "virtual" install of XP?
-matthew
It just so happens that Beelzebot is a good friend of mine. Well, that is if you define "friend" to mean "owner of one's soul" and "good" to mean "evil."
-matthew
But in the end, they're all playing something that is predetermined... even if it is with some embellishment. How many violin students can improvise on the spot? How many can just "jam" with other musicians? Does that even happen? Is it even realistic? I don't know much about violin, but I did play guitar on and off for some years I noted a lot of people who could learn to play their favorite songs given enough practice, but ask them to Just Play and they were dumbfounded. Like, "What do you mean 'Just Play?' Play what?"
Learning the rules is one thing, figuring out how to break them properly is quite another.
-matthew
When it comes to music, I think it makes a big difference what kind of music it is. If we're talking about just playing written music with accuracy and precision, I'm sure most people could do it by learning the "rules" and practicing a lot. Starting young also helps. But there is a more subjective aspect to music that goes beyond simply being able to manipulate the instrument. Can a musician improvise? Does the musician have innate rhythm? How about "soul?"
It has nothing to do with how long it takes to learn music theory. Give an instrument to two people and teach them how ot play it. Give them, say, a year to learn the basics. They'll probably both be able to play some songs with similar skill. Now, take away their sheet music. Tell them to play something original.. improvise. I guarantee you you'll separate the naturals from the "robots" in no time. THAT is what innate ability is about.
I like your computer comparison. A computer can be programmed to play just about any music you tell it to play. I have yet to hear a computer compose (good) original music, improvise, and adapt to the playing of others in real time. Question is, how does one quantify this so it can be studied?
-matthew
The performance of a desktop OS inside VMWare can never compete with the real thing. It would be a lot more than a small speed bump to get Apple hardware. Come to think of it, that may be an argument against releasing a VMware image. People might get the impression that OS X is slow when they run it in virtualization.
And $3000? Are you kidding me? How long have you been out of the Mac market? Maybe if you're looking for a quad core tower or the high end MacBook Pro you will shell out three grand. Although even the base quad core (Xeon processors) Mac Pro is only $2500 http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=AFBB8654&nclm=MacPro An Intel Mac Mini is under a grand and it is plenty fast. And the iMacs are not too shabby either. This would cover 80% of PC users easily.
Wow, the exact opposite of me. I used PCs almost exclusively for what must be 20 years. I never did much with Windows on my own computers. I went right from DOS to Linux about 12 years ago (my God, have I been using Linux that long!?). About a year ago I took a job at an art college where my desktop is a Mac. I was tempted to install Linux PPC on it (I'm sysadmin, I can run whatever I want)... but I decided that i would give OS X a serious try.
/Applications. No hassle with packages and dependencies. No worrying about where an application is putting files. Upgrade Firefox? Just drag a new version into /Applications.
;-)
So far it has worked out really well. I think I am a "switcher" now. I haven't rejected Linux. I still use Linux and FreeBSD for servers, but I just can't get myself away from the elegant design of the OS X desktop (and the hardware itself). It is just so slick. I think it is totally awesome that I can install a program simply by dropping it in
After 20 years of fscking with PC hardware (jumpers, IRQs, incompatable chipsets, funky drivers, etc), this is a well earned break. I used to build PC system. And I built my current Mac. I went out and bought a used G4 tower (AGP graphics), installed a 1Ghz upgrade module that I got a good deal on, and installed a modded NVIDIA Gefore 3 from a PC. I'm good to go for now. I've actually got a 2 Ghz P4 PC sitting here that hasn't been seriously used in months. I'd rather use the Mac even if it is like 1/4 the speed. I do a lot of Ruby on Rails development and I just love Textmate.
The "upgradability" of a plain jane PC tower is overrated. I've found that any time I do an upgrade lately on a PC, I end up just gutting it. New CPU, new motherboard (because new CPUs use different sockets), new RAM (because new motherboards use different RAM), new video card (AGP is obsolete), new harddrive (because, hell, why not?
Bill Clinton is generally considered "centrist" by all but the most radical conservatives.
And wood. Don't forget about the wood. Yeah, we have some here, but have you ever seen what deforestation looks like? I'd just assume take their wood and keep our forests where they are.
As far as good beer goes though, we got *penty* of that up here in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. There's a microbrewery every 2 blocks (even in rural areas!). I haven't even tried them all yet. No need to go to Canada for good beer.
-matthew
People will expect support if there is any hint from Apple that OS X will work on a beige box PC. Doesn't matter if there is some fine print somehere that says "only supported on offical Mac hardware."
As long as Apple maintains the offical line that OS X doesn't run on non-Apple hardware, they will not be forced to do anything. Let the hackers and enthusiast's run OS X on beige boxes if they want. They are not the kind of people to expect support when none is offered and they are unlikely to generate bad press complaining about broken divers or whatever.
It might be nice, however, if Apple allowed OS X to run in VMware so that people could get a "taste" of OS X before switching. A cheap, downloadable VMware Player image would be interesting. I know lots of people who would give that a try.... Linux AND Windows users. The nice thing about that idea is that it is practically guaranteed to "Just Work" like OS X is supposed to. No problems with drivers and whatnot. VMWare would benefit as well.
-matthew
Everone knows that Canada is just the unarmed wing of the US.
-matthew