Writely is one of those desktop app wannabe, AJAX, JS UI pieces of crap. I'm surprised it works on any browser.
we (my company) no longer support Safari on our web applications -- we just can't. And I don't see us ever going back to that when we can code to one standard -- Firefox -- and have it work everywhere.
Oh come on. Developing on Firefox and then making it work in Safari isn't that hard unless you've got some mad Javascript going on. In which case, I feel for you. The problem isn't the lack of a "design view," it is the nearly useless Javascript debugging.
I'd guess that if he's forced to use something as outdated as NT4, then he probably doesn't have a computer with BIOS capable of recognizing USB storage.
In 2 years XP will still be the the majority of Windows installations. You'd have to wait longer than that for Vista and IE7 to have a real impact on Firefox. And we don't really know how the security of Vista + IE7 will pan out. I'd say it is too early to tell when IE7 will do to Firefox.
Yay! You actually read and responded to something I said besides the tonge-in-cheek part.
It's one of my business partner's mother, and she is in her '70s. She likes her programs, she likes Windows 3.1, and she doesn't do any gaming or web surfing on that platform. Why should she dump a working computer and buy new applications (or go with OOo) when her existing computer WORKS, and aside from a HDD that was dying, has been largely problem-free for well over 10 years? She surfs the web on her Mac (running OS 9, they haven't bothered to upgrade yet), or if they need a newer computer to access something online, they visit the office and use one of our computers.
Whoa, hold up there, cowboy. I never said that she, or anyone else, *should* upgrade to anything. The claim that I was originally responding to was that the reason that the average user doesn't, won't, or can't migrate away from Windows is because of some long term "investment." And now you are saying that the reason is because there is just no reason. Not only that, but now it revealed that your friend isn't even limited using this one Win 3.1 box. She's got a Mac as well as other PCs that she uses.
What you are exhibiting is an elitist attitude
No, what i am exihibiting is a reaction to your inane and ultimately irrelevent remarks.
and makes me think you're either a Microsoft employee with a stake in forcing everyone to upgrade, or a Microsoft-flavor kool aid drinking fanboy.
ROFL! First you accuse me of trying to get people to migrate to Linux when i was talking about how great Macs are for average users, and now you are accusing me of being a Microsoft fanboy? Are you stupid or do you just not read too good?
Windows 3.1, DOS, or even a commodore Vic-20 is perfectly adequate for some people's purposes. They're comfortable with the tools they have, don't need anything later and greater than that,
Well, except when they go to a Mac to browse the internet, the office to do more advanced online stuff, or have their son's business partner backup their harddrive onto CD because Win 3.1 isn't capable. Clearly the needs of this friend of yours are not being met by Windows 3.1. And I think it is hillarious that you continue to insist that they are.
They're comfortable with the tools they have, don't need anything later and greater than that,
Yeah, and i'm comfortable with my weed whacker. I don't need a lawn mower or any other new-fangled tool... except when I want to mow my lawn and do the things that my weed whacker can't do effectively.
o why should they be coerced by the likes of you to upgrade? I suggested they upgrade, but she plans to get a new Mac soon, but KEEP the Windows 3.1 machine running until it cannot be fixed any more.
Oh god! It gets better! Apparently you lied when you said she refuses to use anything else. Not only is she upgrading to modern tools, but she is planning on getting a Mac. Dude, go back and read my previously posts. That is *excactly* what I was suggesting.
but KEEP the Windows 3.1 machine running until it cannot be fixed any more. She LIKES it.
Yeah, I think I'll try to tell my wife the I LIKE her and will keep her around until she can't be fixed anymore, but meanwhile I'm going to go find a younger, sexier girlfriend on the side. Maybe you can come along and help me convince my wife that I dont' need anyone else. You'd make her laugh, if nothing else.
You DON'T like it.
Oh, i love it. This is the single most entertaining/. thread I've ever participated in. Thank you.
Should people force you to LIKE Windows 3.1 and enjoy older applications? Why not? After all, others like it and so should you,
AFAIK, Darwin's kernel is a heavily modified microkernel-ish version of BSD. I'm sure they could port the drivers, but I don't think there quite enough hardware support. Also, it isn't just about having a driver there for a given piece of hardware. Particular combinations of hardware can be problematic. Microsoft, with all of its resources and vendor support, can barely pull it off.
I'm sure Apple does not want to play the "infinite possible hardware configurations" game. That is a support and development nightmare. They just don't have the infrustructure for it. Also, one of the biggest draws of te Mac is that they Just Work. Not only do they Just Work, but the OS is tightly integrated with the hardware. There is no question of compatability. Release OS X for the beige boxes and all that is lost. OS X would most likely go the way of OS/2. Remember OS/2? Wasn't OS/2 significantly better than Windows back in the day? Remember IBM's proprietary PCs? If IBM couldn't pull it off, how could Apple?
The real question is, who makes plans that involve the early adoption of a significantly renovated Microsoft OS? Granted, things aren't quite as bad as the NT 4.0 days where the OS didn't even approach general stability until around SP4, but one would be wise to wait until at least until SP1 of Vista before widescale deployment.
Here's a shocker for you: hard drives can be removed and put into other machines to be backed up, and occasionally one can mount corrupt partitions with Linux or use data recovery programs from Win2K/XP to retrieve data, and burn that data to disc using the newer computer. OMFG!!;)
Hey, asshole, did you notice the ":-p" at the end of the line? Did you happen to read the rest of my post?
Maybe if you friend wasn't such stubborn luddite, she would use a modern computer/OS that supports a CD burner and make her own backups.
Nice troll, though.
I had a perfectly reasonable response to your post and all you responded to was the one little part where I put a ":-p" at the end of the line. Not only that but you completely misread (intentionally?) my previous post and thought I was suggesting that Win 98 (or Win 3.1 in this case) users switch to Linux. I'm beginning to think you don't actually have a friend who insists on using Win 3.1. You're the troll, buddy.
Ok, games, maybe. But Wordstar? Lotus 1-2-3? dBase? Are you joking? Whoever you have in mind here is certainly not representative of the average user.
Sure, the documents can be read from Linux, and the applications might even run in dosbox or qemu/freedos, but users need to "think" a little more.
I was specifically talking about migrating to OS X, not Linux. For as much as a Linux fan as I might be, I know that Linux will not replace Windows for most people. OS X can and does.
Games usually work but not always perfectly. Some people LIKE old DOS apps, or even Windows 3.1 apps - a couple of months ago I replaced a HDD in a Windows 3.1 box for a friend who REFUSES to give up Windows 3.1. She likes the applications she has and has many hundreds of documents (poems she's written, lectures, financials, etc.) and does NOT want to learn a new system. Between DOS and Windows she DOES have 20 years worth of documents on that computer, and now she has a backup on CD as well.
Wow, you mean she can actually get a CD burner to work in Windows 3.1?:-P
Seriously, 20 years worth of "documents" does not equate to a 20 year investment. Modern software, be it Windows or Mac, can usually read those old document adequately enough. What you're talking about is an irrational emotional attachment to what is comfortable. Unless your friend is old and not going to be around much longer, she will most likely give in eventually and buy a new computer. And when that time comes, Apple is a excellent choice. Especially for someone who is weary of learning something new.
The Mac users in our family are outnumbered 20 to 1. Linux isn't in the picture at all. I'm inclined to put the break on talk of migration when users have a ten to twenty year investment in the MSDOS and Windows platform.
Oh come on, how many home users have a "ten to twenty year investment" in MSDOS and Windows? What are they attached to? Some hardware from 1995? Almost everyone I know who has bought a new PC (going from 98 to XP, for example) all but abandons their old software and data except for a few essential documents because effectively migrating that stuff between PCs is not a trivial task (unlike with Macs where migration from one Mac to another is not only trivial, but a primary feature). Hell, I know people who reformat their whole PC regularly, only reinstalling specific applications, when Windows starts to act totally screwy.
These people are not mired in a ten to twenty year investment. PCs are largely considered disposable. Migrating to Apple is hardly a migration at all aside from the decidedly easy learning curve. Botton line: Most people coming from Win 98 should find switching to OS X no more stressful, and only a little more expensive, than upgrading to XP. And even the cost factor is negligable considering the bredth of software included with every new Mac. iLife, anyone? Does Dell ship anything like iLife?
1. Cannot justify the expense when Windows 98 works fine.
My experience is that Windows 98 doesn't run "just fine" for many (most, even) of the people who still run it. It is a big pain in the ass full of malware and hangs and stutters left and right. It is just that most of these people also happen to fall into your category #3. They are too lazy to care. Well, that and they just don't know any better. If they ask me what they should buy when this computer finally dies, I usually tell them "Get a Mac Mini" if they don't have the money to an iBook (well, MacBook now). Many don't take it to heart and just stick with what they know, but some do switch and they are generally a lot happier for it.
2. Need to run programs that don't work in newer versions of Windows.
Not terribly common outside of the corporate world. It usually isn't difficult to find adequate substitutes for what people think they need to run. But this requires that they don't also fall into the "don't care" category.
3. Too lazy to care
Probably the biggest one keeping people on Win 98/ME. Although I am not sure it is necessarily laziness. Lots of people don't make personal computing a priority in life. I can relate to this. I have a similar attitude towards cars. ALthough the analogy between cars and computers isn't great because a crappy personal computer usually doesn't eat up the kind of $$$ that a crappy car can.
Believe it or not, implementing all of those standards properly is a monumental engineering effort. Which features would you leave out to make it "minimal"?
Good question. I don't know. I was responding to someone else's suggestion that IE is a good "baseline" browser in the same way that Wordpad is a "baseline" word processor. I don't think that is true.
Actually, most Java application developers work on business applications that never see the light of the public day.
And don't you think there migth be a reason for this? Portability doesn't matter to most users. Most users are not willing to sacrafice OS integration and OS consistency for portability. For example, given a native Cocoa app and a Swing app which do about the same thing and are both resonably well designed, I can guarantee you most users will go with the native app. Businesses, however, often don't care if an interface is a little clunky. Just so long as it gets the job done.
And I would disagree, again - well written Ruby can certainly be fast, if you're using Ruby in the right way.
No, the ruby interpreter is measurably slower than other scripting languages. That much is a fact. Ruby can be "fast enough" for many uses, but it does have a certain disadvantage.
Of course, you wouldn't use Ruby to write the firmware for a cell phone, would you? No, didn't think so. You might use C, or you might drop to Assembler, and hey - that's appropriate for that use.
Likewise, I probably wouldn't try to write a complex GUI in Java Swing either unless portability was important.
I don't agree with the camp of folks that need to pit languages against each other and have one come out on top.
By the time you've got SMTP, e-mail storage, handling and indexing, a web interface and POP3 interface, adding an IMAP interface for the Outlook/Thunderbird/Pine/whatever users is relatively trivial.
It isn't just trivial, it is essential. And that is why a Google email appliance wouldn't be significantly better than any other email appliance. Google wouldn't make a fortune on it. They'd be competing with every other email appliance out the market.
Seriously, what does Google have going for them? A nice web interface? Who'd buy a corporate email appliance just to use the web interface? Web mail is great for when you need access to email from any computer, but when you're accessing email from the same computer 8 hours a day, people prefer Outlook/Thunderbird/pine/whatever.
On the other hand, if you have, say, 5 common browsers (Safari, IE, Opera, Firefox, and Konq.) which all render roughly the same except for one (IE), can you really say that the odd man out is the "defacto standard?" Do you compare raw number of users or number of products? When a web developer wants to make a web site which display correctly on all browsers, IE is the one that causes most of the problems. Where is the "defacto standards" in that?
I know the Slashdot crowd will poo-poo on this release, the zealots will shout for their favorite browser, etc. And for the most part, they're right. The media seems oblivious to this, but I've stopping thinking of IE7 as a competitor to all of the other browsers. Instead, I see it as what a baseline browser that's integrated into the OS should be.
A "baseline" browser would be standards compliant and minimal, which IE7 is not.
I don't consider this an option. Personal email, okay, whatever. I'm not talking about anything important in it 99% of the time anyway. Work email? Hell no. That's your company's secrets. You want that onsite. Also, having the email server be local means that local email still works when the internet connection is down, and it's a whole hell of a lot faster to boot.
There are plenty of email appliances out there. The gmail interface may be good, but most people in a company are going to want to use Outlook or something to read their mail. The web interface for such a device is actually small part of the package.
Besides, selling appliances isn't Google's game. They ultimately want to sell services that bring in recurring revenue.
Java apologist? Listen, every language has its place. Ruby is an excellent script language,
Yes, a Java apologist. I use Ruby a lot and the major complaint about Ruby is that the interpreter is slow. And I accept that. I don't appoligize for it. I don't go around saying "anyone can write a slow script..." It is slow. I deal with it. A Java apoligist, on the other hand, when faced with claims that Java UIs are generally somewhat clunky, inconsistent (with the OS), and slow compared to native apps say things like:
Anyhow, well written apps in any language will rock, whereas poorly written apps will suck.
Must be a lot of sucky Java programmers out there. Where are the good Java programmers spending their time? Do they all work on the awesome IDEs so the poor programmers can churn out clunky applicaitons for us users?
I think Swing/SWT have plenty of well-written apps other than IDEs, like the Swinglabs demo at JavaOne 2006: Aerith (https://aerith.dev.java.net/)
Sorry, no use for it.
and LimeWire (http://www.limewire.com/english/content/home.shtm l) - not as clunky as Azureus.
Why does the government have to do ANYTHING about it? The government (in the US anyway) is in no position to be "replacing" the bad habits of kids with anything.
Hell, it may sound a little pessimistic, but this "solution" may even aggravate the problem if these kids/teenagers start developing even worst habits like drugs or alcohol because they have nothing else to fill their lives with.
Slashdot Mirror
You underestimate the value of gravity when it comes to puking those drinks back up.
-matthew
Not to mention all that nasty radiation.
Writely is one of those desktop app wannabe, AJAX, JS UI pieces of crap. I'm surprised it works on any browser.
Oh come on. Developing on Firefox and then making it work in Safari isn't that hard unless you've got some mad Javascript going on. In which case, I feel for you. The problem isn't the lack of a "design view," it is the nearly useless Javascript debugging.
-matthew
Quit your job now and end the pain.
I'd guess that if he's forced to use something as outdated as NT4, then he probably doesn't have a computer with BIOS capable of recognizing USB storage.
-matthew
In 2 years XP will still be the the majority of Windows installations. You'd have to wait longer than that for Vista and IE7 to have a real impact on Firefox. And we don't really know how the security of Vista + IE7 will pan out. I'd say it is too early to tell when IE7 will do to Firefox.
-matthew
Nothing wrong with Novell's eDirectory/NDS. It is generally considered better than A/D and has the LDAP compatability layer.
Anyway, sounds like they are pretty set on Netware for now. I think he made that pretty clear.
-matthew
Whoa, hold up there, cowboy. I never said that she, or anyone else, *should* upgrade to anything. The claim that I was originally responding to was that the reason that the average user doesn't, won't, or can't migrate away from Windows is because of some long term "investment." And now you are saying that the reason is because there is just no reason. Not only that, but now it revealed that your friend isn't even limited using this one Win 3.1 box. She's got a Mac as well as other PCs that she uses.
No, what i am exihibiting is a reaction to your inane and ultimately irrelevent remarks.
ROFL! First you accuse me of trying to get people to migrate to Linux when i was talking about how great Macs are for average users, and now you are accusing me of being a Microsoft fanboy? Are you stupid or do you just not read too good?
Well, except when they go to a Mac to browse the internet, the office to do more advanced online stuff, or have their son's business partner backup their harddrive onto CD because Win 3.1 isn't capable. Clearly the needs of this friend of yours are not being met by Windows 3.1. And I think it is hillarious that you continue to insist that they are.
Yeah, and i'm comfortable with my weed whacker. I don't need a lawn mower or any other new-fangled tool... except when I want to mow my lawn and do the things that my weed whacker can't do effectively.
Oh god! It gets better! Apparently you lied when you said she refuses to use anything else. Not only is she upgrading to modern tools, but she is planning on getting a Mac. Dude, go back and read my previously posts. That is *excactly* what I was suggesting.
Yeah, I think I'll try to tell my wife the I LIKE her and will keep her around until she can't be fixed anymore, but meanwhile I'm going to go find a younger, sexier girlfriend on the side. Maybe you can come along and help me convince my wife that I dont' need anyone else. You'd make her laugh, if nothing else.
Oh, i love it. This is the single most entertaining /. thread I've ever participated in. Thank you.
AFAIK, Darwin's kernel is a heavily modified microkernel-ish version of BSD. I'm sure they could port the drivers, but I don't think there quite enough hardware support. Also, it isn't just about having a driver there for a given piece of hardware. Particular combinations of hardware can be problematic. Microsoft, with all of its resources and vendor support, can barely pull it off.
-matthew
I'm sure Apple does not want to play the "infinite possible hardware configurations" game. That is a support and development nightmare. They just don't have the infrustructure for it. Also, one of the biggest draws of te Mac is that they Just Work. Not only do they Just Work, but the OS is tightly integrated with the hardware. There is no question of compatability. Release OS X for the beige boxes and all that is lost. OS X would most likely go the way of OS/2. Remember OS/2? Wasn't OS/2 significantly better than Windows back in the day? Remember IBM's proprietary PCs? If IBM couldn't pull it off, how could Apple?
-matthew
The real question is, who makes plans that involve the early adoption of a significantly renovated Microsoft OS? Granted, things aren't quite as bad as the NT 4.0 days where the OS didn't even approach general stability until around SP4, but one would be wise to wait until at least until SP1 of Vista before widescale deployment.
-matthew
Hey, asshole, did you notice the ":-p" at the end of the line? Did you happen to read the rest of my post?
Maybe if you friend wasn't such stubborn luddite, she would use a modern computer/OS that supports a CD burner and make her own backups.
I had a perfectly reasonable response to your post and all you responded to was the one little part where I put a ":-p" at the end of the line. Not only that but you completely misread (intentionally?) my previous post and thought I was suggesting that Win 98 (or Win 3.1 in this case) users switch to Linux. I'm beginning to think you don't actually have a friend who insists on using Win 3.1. You're the troll, buddy.
-matthew
Ok, games, maybe. But Wordstar? Lotus 1-2-3? dBase? Are you joking? Whoever you have in mind here is certainly not representative of the average user.
I was specifically talking about migrating to OS X, not Linux. For as much as a Linux fan as I might be, I know that Linux will not replace Windows for most people. OS X can and does.
Wow, you mean she can actually get a CD burner to work in Windows 3.1?
Seriously, 20 years worth of "documents" does not equate to a 20 year investment. Modern software, be it Windows or Mac, can usually read those old document adequately enough. What you're talking about is an irrational emotional attachment to what is comfortable. Unless your friend is old and not going to be around much longer, she will most likely give in eventually and buy a new computer. And when that time comes, Apple is a excellent choice. Especially for someone who is weary of learning something new.
-matthew
Oh come on, how many home users have a "ten to twenty year investment" in MSDOS and Windows? What are they attached to? Some hardware from 1995? Almost everyone I know who has bought a new PC (going from 98 to XP, for example) all but abandons their old software and data except for a few essential documents because effectively migrating that stuff between PCs is not a trivial task (unlike with Macs where migration from one Mac to another is not only trivial, but a primary feature). Hell, I know people who reformat their whole PC regularly, only reinstalling specific applications, when Windows starts to act totally screwy.
These people are not mired in a ten to twenty year investment. PCs are largely considered disposable. Migrating to Apple is hardly a migration at all aside from the decidedly easy learning curve. Botton line: Most people coming from Win 98 should find switching to OS X no more stressful, and only a little more expensive, than upgrading to XP. And even the cost factor is negligable considering the bredth of software included with every new Mac. iLife, anyone? Does Dell ship anything like iLife?
-matthew
My experience is that Windows 98 doesn't run "just fine" for many (most, even) of the people who still run it. It is a big pain in the ass full of malware and hangs and stutters left and right. It is just that most of these people also happen to fall into your category #3. They are too lazy to care. Well, that and they just don't know any better. If they ask me what they should buy when this computer finally dies, I usually tell them "Get a Mac Mini" if they don't have the money to an iBook (well, MacBook now). Many don't take it to heart and just stick with what they know, but some do switch and they are generally a lot happier for it.
Not terribly common outside of the corporate world. It usually isn't difficult to find adequate substitutes for what people think they need to run. But this requires that they don't also fall into the "don't care" category.
Probably the biggest one keeping people on Win 98/ME. Although I am not sure it is necessarily laziness. Lots of people don't make personal computing a priority in life. I can relate to this. I have a similar attitude towards cars. ALthough the analogy between cars and computers isn't great because a crappy personal computer usually doesn't eat up the kind of $$$ that a crappy car can.
-matthew
Don't hold your breath. Notes + Java. Does that SOUND like something that will be anything but resource hungry and sluggish?
-matthew
Good question. I don't know. I was responding to someone else's suggestion that IE is a good "baseline" browser in the same way that Wordpad is a "baseline" word processor. I don't think that is true.
-matthew
And don't you think there migth be a reason for this? Portability doesn't matter to most users. Most users are not willing to sacrafice OS integration and OS consistency for portability. For example, given a native Cocoa app and a Swing app which do about the same thing and are both resonably well designed, I can guarantee you most users will go with the native app. Businesses, however, often don't care if an interface is a little clunky. Just so long as it gets the job done.
No, the ruby interpreter is measurably slower than other scripting languages. That much is a fact. Ruby can be "fast enough" for many uses, but it does have a certain disadvantage.
Likewise, I probably wouldn't try to write a complex GUI in Java Swing either unless portability was important.
Good. I'm not in that camp.
-matthew
It isn't just trivial, it is essential. And that is why a Google email appliance wouldn't be significantly better than any other email appliance. Google wouldn't make a fortune on it. They'd be competing with every other email appliance out the market.
Seriously, what does Google have going for them? A nice web interface? Who'd buy a corporate email appliance just to use the web interface? Web mail is great for when you need access to email from any computer, but when you're accessing email from the same computer 8 hours a day, people prefer Outlook/Thunderbird/pine/whatever.
-matthew
On the other hand, if you have, say, 5 common browsers (Safari, IE, Opera, Firefox, and Konq.) which all render roughly the same except for one (IE), can you really say that the odd man out is the "defacto standard?" Do you compare raw number of users or number of products? When a web developer wants to make a web site which display correctly on all browsers, IE is the one that causes most of the problems. Where is the "defacto standards" in that?
-matthew
A "baseline" browser would be standards compliant and minimal, which IE7 is not.
-matthew
There are plenty of email appliances out there. The gmail interface may be good, but most people in a company are going to want to use Outlook or something to read their mail. The web interface for such a device is actually small part of the package.
Besides, selling appliances isn't Google's game. They ultimately want to sell services that bring in recurring revenue.
-matthew
Yes, a Java apologist. I use Ruby a lot and the major complaint about Ruby is that the interpreter is slow. And I accept that. I don't appoligize for it. I don't go around saying "anyone can write a slow script..." It is slow. I deal with it. A Java apoligist, on the other hand, when faced with claims that Java UIs are generally somewhat clunky, inconsistent (with the OS), and slow compared to native apps say things like:
Must be a lot of sucky Java programmers out there. Where are the good Java programmers spending their time? Do they all work on the awesome IDEs so the poor programmers can churn out clunky applicaitons for us users?
Sorry, no use for it.
Wow, Limewire. Is that still around?
-matthew
Or you could just have Google host your email domains and not worry about buying a device for your network.
-matthew
This is already a big problem.
-matthew