As much as it pains me to say this, Microsoft has such a strangle-hold over the most common document formats that this attempt will be largely useless unless they come on board.
Which they, most obviously, won't.
However, I applaud this group for at least trying. However the realistic cynic in me says that we're not going to see many gains. Hell, the average user in a company doesn't know of and has never been exposed to anything else but Word, Powerpoint and Excel.
If that's the sort of minimal marketshare the competition occupies, it's going to be a tough battle.
Yes, the same "schmoe" who happens to be the development lead for the Safari project. Seeing as how he works for Apple, it would most certainly be Apple who did this.
True, but the parent does have a point.
If it had be me who patched Safari to pass Acid2 but didn't release those patches for anyone to see, I doubt I'd have got the Slashdot coverage.
In short, although this is good news, it's really news when everyone else can get their grubby mits on the changes. As of yet, they can't.
Given that its possible to modify the logic at a lower level (so to speak) in Smart Folders, I wonder if there might be the same way to do this with Smart Playlists. You never know.
As soon as I saw this, it made me rememeber this article by Cringely (written in August 2001) which discusses the "problem" of raw sockets.
From it:
According to these programmers, Microsoft wants to replace TCP/IP with a proprietary protocol -- a protocol owned by Microsoft -- that it will tout as being more secure. Actually, the new protocol would likely be TCP/IP with some of the reserved fields used as pointers to proprietary extensions, quite similar to Vines IP, if you remember that product from Banyan Systems. I'll call it TCP/MS.
How do you push for the acceptance of a new protocol? First, make the old one unworkable by placing millions of exploitable TCP/IP stacks out on the Net, ready-to-use by any teenage sociopath. When the Net slows or crashes, the blame would not be assigned to Microsoft. Then ship the new protocol with every new copy of Windows, and install it with every Windows Update over the Internet. Zero to 100 million copies could happen in less than a year, and that year could be prior to the new protocol even being announced. It could be shipping right now.
Problem is I'm still not convinced. I've got a project folder here with 12 sub-folders, 30 sub-sub folders and over 500 different files with different filename and types.
Making a formula that correctly "contains" all those files sounds like a bit of a nightmare to set up and maintain.
Having said that, Smart Playlists on iTunes is neat but woefully underpowered and inflexible. For example I can't get a smart playlist that is "(trance OR ambient OR chillout) AND rating>=4".
Why burrow around in folders when you can open any file or program with a couple of keystrokes?
Quite frankly, whilst I like the idea of this, I also like the idea of nicely categorised folders and sub-folders containing all the relevant information on a particular subject.
Searching is only useful if you know what you are looking for. If you want to see the associated documents for a project it's far easier to delve into the project name and then check out the various folders for the plans, test scripts, risks and issues logs and other information.
So yes, search is great, but it isn't going to mean that people can abandon structured storage overnight. Or any time soon.
Walt Mossberg of the WSJ says 'Tiger Leaps Out in Front' but complains about slowness of some applications - notably Mail.
In all fairness, I've not used OSX before but back when the Classic and IIc reigned supreme the common complaint about the Mac was that it was too underpowered for the Operating System and the applications. Hell, my 7mhz Amiga felt zippier and responded quicker than the IIc.
Even in the Windows world, iTunes runs rather slow, has limited features (including the annoying "feature" of getting itself and my iPod completely out of sync with "consolidate" being the only, drastic, tool to resolve this) and takes up an inane amount of memory. Hardly a good impression of what to expect from Apple.
Sadly, these two things (including the fact that I'll be effectivily throwing away all the money I've currently invested in my PC) sour my desire to immediately switch to Apple.
However, when we all shift to BTX and I've got no choice but to replace every part of my computer then I have no doubt that I'll make the jump.
This won't be for a couple of years and i think there might be others who will wait until they find that the only way to move forward is replace so much of their PC that switching to Apple entirely isn't so much of a big deal.
However, most hardware will not support this technology on release.
I'm assuming you'd need a replacement motherboard here.
Given that the last time I replaced my motherboard, I ended up getting replacement hard drives, memory, graphics cards, case, power supply and a whole host of other bits and pieces (yes, it was rather old, but that's beside the point) - I think that it will probably be the best time to consider switching to a Mac.
It wouldn't surprise me if other people consider the same once they work out the true cost of "just replacing a motherboard".
Sounds great until you see the price tag - it's nearly $800!
That is the price without network subsidy.
The Sony Ericsson P910 is 450 UKP from expansys but you can get it on T-Mobile for free to 289 UKP depending on your chosen contract.
At 533 UKP, you're looking at a contract point of about 200-300 UKP. Which granted is still a lot of money - just not quite as much as you originally quoted:)
Assuming you live for 80 years and that you purchase music from the age of 10, a $9.99/month subscription to Napster would end up costing you slightly over $36,363 for access to their entire portfolio.
With iTunes, that same amount would get you 36,363 tracks of music (or about 3,030 albums) which would also last you your entire life.
If you intend on purchasing huge volumes of music, then the Napster deal is far better - however this doesn't take into account the fact that if the service closes earlier, you could end up with no ability to play your music.
Not to be a Palm OS fanboy or anything but why have you limited your choices to Symbian and PocketPC OS?
Sadly, the main reason is that the Treo is only available in the UK on Orange and I'm not on them:(
Believe it or not when equipped with the right apps, the Palm OS syncs with desktop MS software better than Microsoft's own PocketPC products.
Very true, although in order to achieve better syncing (I'm assuming KeyContacts and the ilk) you have to use an application which maintains seperate databases for the contacts, diary, tasks and notes. Unfortunately this has the nasty side effect or meaning that every other application that reads and writes data to and from those standard databases breaks immediately unless the authors include support for the newer formats.
A shame really, but then IMHO the pace of innovation in the Palm camp has been very little since the Vx so it's not much of a suprise.
Having just had my life cruelly shattered in the realisation that the Sony Ericsson P910 is neither a good phone or a good PDA, I'm actually glad that Microsoft is expanding into the smartphone market through Dell.
So far, my current P910 thinks that closing the flip means I'm done, doesn't syncronise with Outlook properly (all my mobile numbers are labelled as work), runs dog slow, can't call up numbers quickly to dial them, the keyboard doesn't suggest words, no quick way to enter a capital letter (no swipe-up movement like with Microsoft), inconsistent GUI including a complete failure to sort my applications by anything resembling alphabetically.
Sure, the PocketPC phone editions have their issues too (random bugs requiring a restart, pitiful Outlook support, poor ActiveSync which often has problems syncing an appointment for an "unspecified error") but with Microsoft snapping a the heels, hopefully the quality bar will increase.
You need to keep in mind that Microsoft is a very large company and each department is so large that it is almost like a company within its self. So if it is bad for the Windows Server team that the Virtual Server team has done this, well too bad. The Virtual Server team needs to keep their product competitive and they are just telling it as it is; they are an x86 system virtualizer and need to support popular x86 platforms, if they didn't then they deserve to die off.
Otherwise known as "cost centre accounting". Each department is a cost-centre and needs to reach targets for the year.
If those targets upset another cost-centre, well, too bad. If they pandered to the whim of every centre then you'd have no product, wouldn't reach your targets and the whole department would be laid off.
Perhaps the significance of this is that Microsoft has acknowledged Linux as an OS people might want to use, which seems an upgrade from its previous status as a communist cancer.
Ignoring the age of the quote I see no reason why a company can't provide support in their product for a product they dislike or compete against. Hell, you've been able to import non-Microsoft file formats into their applications for years.
Especially if it's going to mean that they're actually going to have a more competitive product or bring them more money.
I really don't understand why people are cribbing about/.'s coverage of Google. Google *is* one of the fastest innovating companies out there, coupled with being one whose products are widely used. They are a revolutionary company in many respects.
It has nothing to do with Google but more to do with the fact that there have been 21 articles in 3 days. If you had the same volume about Linus and Bitkeeper, the RIAA, Sony's PSP, Microsoft and anything else you would still get the same complaints.
If the Slashdot editors removed the dead "Apache" section and replaced it with a "Google" one then those people who don't want to see it can get them removed.
The whole point of being able to filter things out is for you to hide frequently re-ocurring topics on Slashdot that are of no interest to you. With the volume of articles it has had recently, I think it is fair to say that Google falls into the category of "frequently occurring", however, since you can't do anything to filter them out - then people start to (rightfully) complain.
The communities on The Rathe and Karana servers have put forth an extraordinary amount of time and energy to create their rotational systems and we want to do what we can to support these players and their chosen play style. As a result of this change, Bertoxxulous and Tholuxe Paells will be combined.
You know you're getting old and not "with it" when you read that three times and realise that you haven't the faintest idea what he's talking about.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have my comfy slippers on and a pipe to smoke...
Having tried Firefox, and having used Opera for a long time, I can honestly say that yes, it is worth it to pay for a nice bundled browser package, even if you could jerry-rig a free browser to have most of the same functionality. I'm willing to bet that a few years from now, Opera will still be around. I have my doubts about Firefox.
Someone once described Opera to me as "Firefox, but will all the extensions you'd want bundled in so you don't have to faff around with installing them... and with a smaller download".
As much as I like the extension ideas:
I still find it odd that a DOM inspector comes bundled with the package but not something way more benificial like AdBlock.
It would be nice if you could select some extensions as part of the install process and it would go off, download and install them for you ready to be used.
I find it really annoying that I have to install simple extensions for stupid things that really should be part of the base functionality. For example, I have to install an extension (miniT) and then edit a config file so that tabs opened by ctrl-click are opened to the right of my active one, rather than right at the very end of my currently open tabs.
I may look at Opera, but having put so much work into getting Firefox the way I like it, I'm somewhat reluctant.
You're right, it's just that I find it rather odd that Apple can't seem to syncronise the releases of accessories for a new model at the same time as it is released. Especially in the case of cases, where everyone knows that if you don't have one then you end up with a scuffed up iPod.
I was just at compUSA and they have cases stacked... maybe you should look around a bit better?
Blast, should have said I live in the UK.
At present Apple do not ship a case which will fit the thickness of the 60 gig iPod over here. This was confirmed by several of the sales guys at the Apple Store on Regents Street. In fact, two of them thought that Apple didn't even make a wider version but they couldn't find anything to confirm or deny that.
I don't mind looking around, but going to compUSA in another country is pushing it a bit:)
I understand that Jobs would like people to buy an iPod, see how cool it is and then graduate onto a Mac - however following my recent purchase of a 60 gig iPod I've found that:
I couldn't get an Apple case for it on the day or weeks later.
I can't buy the remote without paying for another set of headphones which, if I wanted, I'd buy seperately.
The only Apple alternative to a case is the socks, yet I have to pay more for 5 of which i'll only use 1 (maybe 2)
So based on this experience alone (and remember, this will be the experience of most buyers of Apple items - ie. they've never seen or used OSX before):
Recently released products that require what are almost universally considered essential accessories simply aren't there when you come to buy your product.
Some accessories contain more items than you require and so you end up paying a premium for things that you'll never need or want to use (4 ipod socks, another set of crappy Apple headphones)
Sure, I know I'm wrong, I know that I still want a Mac Mini but for the uninformed first time buyer of Apple's products, their iPod experience might not be as good as Apple would like.
(ps. it's now months later and you still cannot get an Apple branded 60 gig case, although some other branded ones are starting to arrive)
Microsoft's recent way seems to be hiring what they consider "key" people from other, successful companies, hoping to transplant that success.
That is actually most companies "way".
The people who are rubbish and aren't responsible for (generally sucessful) key products and services don't tend to find themselves approached by rivals. If you are good and you have a proven track record then you will get offers - thats just how it works.
I'm not really sure how this is news, people move from one organisation to a rival all the time (even the very senior people).
I can only assume that it is on here because it has Microsoft in the title and gives the editors a chance to whip out the (frankly stupid) borg icon.
In the case of SP2, Microsoft wants people to upgrade on demand, Schneier says.
So, if Microsoft force you to upgrade to SP2 to reduce the number and chances of a compromised PC it's bad because they're forcing you.
If Microsoft don't force you to upgrade then it's bad because they're not being proactive enough in reducing the number and chances of a compromised PC.
Must be great to be a decision maker at Microsoft where whatever choices you take it won't be liked.
Slashdot Mirror
Which they, most obviously, won't.
However, I applaud this group for at least trying. However the realistic cynic in me says that we're not going to see many gains. Hell, the average user in a company doesn't know of and has never been exposed to anything else but Word, Powerpoint and Excel.
If that's the sort of minimal marketshare the competition occupies, it's going to be a tough battle.
Actually, ignore me. I'm wrong and so is the article poster.
The patches are available on the website for all to download.
True, but the parent does have a point.
If it had be me who patched Safari to pass Acid2 but didn't release those patches for anyone to see, I doubt I'd have got the Slashdot coverage.
In short, although this is good news, it's really news when everyone else can get their grubby mits on the changes. As of yet, they can't.
Given that its possible to modify the logic at a lower level (so to speak) in Smart Folders, I wonder if there might be the same way to do this with Smart Playlists. You never know.
Something for me to go play with :)
From it:
Food for thought.Problem is I'm still not convinced. I've got a project folder here with 12 sub-folders, 30 sub-sub folders and over 500 different files with different filename and types.
Making a formula that correctly "contains" all those files sounds like a bit of a nightmare to set up and maintain.
Having said that, Smart Playlists on iTunes is neat but woefully underpowered and inflexible. For example I can't get a smart playlist that is "(trance OR ambient OR chillout) AND rating>=4".
Hopefully smart folders are a bit more powerful :)
Quite frankly, whilst I like the idea of this, I also like the idea of nicely categorised folders and sub-folders containing all the relevant information on a particular subject.
Searching is only useful if you know what you are looking for. If you want to see the associated documents for a project it's far easier to delve into the project name and then check out the various folders for the plans, test scripts, risks and issues logs and other information.
So yes, search is great, but it isn't going to mean that people can abandon structured storage overnight. Or any time soon.
In all fairness, I've not used OSX before but back when the Classic and IIc reigned supreme the common complaint about the Mac was that it was too underpowered for the Operating System and the applications. Hell, my 7mhz Amiga felt zippier and responded quicker than the IIc.
Even in the Windows world, iTunes runs rather slow, has limited features (including the annoying "feature" of getting itself and my iPod completely out of sync with "consolidate" being the only, drastic, tool to resolve this) and takes up an inane amount of memory. Hardly a good impression of what to expect from Apple.
Sadly, these two things (including the fact that I'll be effectivily throwing away all the money I've currently invested in my PC) sour my desire to immediately switch to Apple.
However, when we all shift to BTX and I've got no choice but to replace every part of my computer then I have no doubt that I'll make the jump.
This won't be for a couple of years and i think there might be others who will wait until they find that the only way to move forward is replace so much of their PC that switching to Apple entirely isn't so much of a big deal.
I'm assuming you'd need a replacement motherboard here.
Given that the last time I replaced my motherboard, I ended up getting replacement hard drives, memory, graphics cards, case, power supply and a whole host of other bits and pieces (yes, it was rather old, but that's beside the point) - I think that it will probably be the best time to consider switching to a Mac.
It wouldn't surprise me if other people consider the same once they work out the true cost of "just replacing a motherboard".
That is the price without network subsidy.
The Sony Ericsson P910 is 450 UKP from expansys but you can get it on T-Mobile for free to 289 UKP depending on your chosen contract.
At 533 UKP, you're looking at a contract point of about 200-300 UKP. Which granted is still a lot of money - just not quite as much as you originally quoted :)
With iTunes, that same amount would get you 36,363 tracks of music (or about 3,030 albums) which would also last you your entire life.
If you intend on purchasing huge volumes of music, then the Napster deal is far better - however this doesn't take into account the fact that if the service closes earlier, you could end up with no ability to play your music.
Sadly, the main reason is that the Treo is only available in the UK on Orange and I'm not on them :(
Believe it or not when equipped with the right apps, the Palm OS syncs with desktop MS software better than Microsoft's own PocketPC products.
Very true, although in order to achieve better syncing (I'm assuming KeyContacts and the ilk) you have to use an application which maintains seperate databases for the contacts, diary, tasks and notes. Unfortunately this has the nasty side effect or meaning that every other application that reads and writes data to and from those standard databases breaks immediately unless the authors include support for the newer formats.
A shame really, but then IMHO the pace of innovation in the Palm camp has been very little since the Vx so it's not much of a suprise.
So far, my current P910 thinks that closing the flip means I'm done, doesn't syncronise with Outlook properly (all my mobile numbers are labelled as work), runs dog slow, can't call up numbers quickly to dial them, the keyboard doesn't suggest words, no quick way to enter a capital letter (no swipe-up movement like with Microsoft), inconsistent GUI including a complete failure to sort my applications by anything resembling alphabetically.
Sure, the PocketPC phone editions have their issues too (random bugs requiring a restart, pitiful Outlook support, poor ActiveSync which often has problems syncing an appointment for an "unspecified error") but with Microsoft snapping a the heels, hopefully the quality bar will increase.
Yep, but it is still classed as "supporting competing formats". If they didn't, then it wouldn't be there.
Otherwise known as "cost centre accounting". Each department is a cost-centre and needs to reach targets for the year.
If those targets upset another cost-centre, well, too bad. If they pandered to the whim of every centre then you'd have no product, wouldn't reach your targets and the whole department would be laid off.
Ignoring the age of the quote I see no reason why a company can't provide support in their product for a product they dislike or compete against. Hell, you've been able to import non-Microsoft file formats into their applications for years.
Especially if it's going to mean that they're actually going to have a more competitive product or bring them more money.
It has nothing to do with Google but more to do with the fact that there have been 21 articles in 3 days. If you had the same volume about Linus and Bitkeeper, the RIAA, Sony's PSP, Microsoft and anything else you would still get the same complaints.
If the Slashdot editors removed the dead "Apache" section and replaced it with a "Google" one then those people who don't want to see it can get them removed.
The whole point of being able to filter things out is for you to hide frequently re-ocurring topics on Slashdot that are of no interest to you. With the volume of articles it has had recently, I think it is fair to say that Google falls into the category of "frequently occurring", however, since you can't do anything to filter them out - then people start to (rightfully) complain.
You know you're getting old and not "with it" when you read that three times and realise that you haven't the faintest idea what he's talking about.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have my comfy slippers on and a pipe to smoke ...
Someone once described Opera to me as "Firefox, but will all the extensions you'd want bundled in so you don't have to faff around with installing them ... and with a smaller download".
As much as I like the extension ideas:
- I still find it odd that a DOM inspector comes bundled with the package but not something way more benificial like AdBlock.
- It would be nice if you could select some extensions as part of the install process and it would go off, download and install them for you ready to be used.
- I find it really annoying that I have to install simple extensions for stupid things that really should be part of the base functionality. For example, I have to install an extension (miniT) and then edit a config file so that tabs opened by ctrl-click are opened to the right of my active one, rather than right at the very end of my currently open tabs.
I may look at Opera, but having put so much work into getting Firefox the way I like it, I'm somewhat reluctant.Last time I checked, Microsoft are under no obligation to provide anyone with any details about their XML schema.
Despite the fact that you have to sign an agreement, this is certainly more "open" than a blanket rejection to everyone who requests access.
I can think of plenty of companies who won't let you get details about a file format they use under any circumstances.
You're right, it's just that I find it rather odd that Apple can't seem to syncronise the releases of accessories for a new model at the same time as it is released. Especially in the case of cases, where everyone knows that if you don't have one then you end up with a scuffed up iPod.
Thanks for the marware link. Will check it out.
Blast, should have said I live in the UK.
At present Apple do not ship a case which will fit the thickness of the 60 gig iPod over here. This was confirmed by several of the sales guys at the Apple Store on Regents Street. In fact, two of them thought that Apple didn't even make a wider version but they couldn't find anything to confirm or deny that.
I don't mind looking around, but going to compUSA in another country is pushing it a bit :)
- I couldn't get an Apple case for it on the day or weeks later.
- I can't buy the remote without paying for another set of headphones which, if I wanted, I'd buy seperately.
- The only Apple alternative to a case is the socks, yet I have to pay more for 5 of which i'll only use 1 (maybe 2)
So based on this experience alone (and remember, this will be the experience of most buyers of Apple items - ie. they've never seen or used OSX before):- Recently released products that require what are almost universally considered essential accessories simply aren't there when you come to buy your product.
- Some accessories contain more items than you require and so you end up paying a premium for things that you'll never need or want to use (4 ipod socks, another set of crappy Apple headphones)
Sure, I know I'm wrong, I know that I still want a Mac Mini but for the uninformed first time buyer of Apple's products, their iPod experience might not be as good as Apple would like.(ps. it's now months later and you still cannot get an Apple branded 60 gig case, although some other branded ones are starting to arrive)
That is actually most companies "way".
The people who are rubbish and aren't responsible for (generally sucessful) key products and services don't tend to find themselves approached by rivals. If you are good and you have a proven track record then you will get offers - thats just how it works.
I'm not really sure how this is news, people move from one organisation to a rival all the time (even the very senior people).
I can only assume that it is on here because it has Microsoft in the title and gives the editors a chance to whip out the (frankly stupid) borg icon.
So, if Microsoft force you to upgrade to SP2 to reduce the number and chances of a compromised PC it's bad because they're forcing you.
If Microsoft don't force you to upgrade then it's bad because they're not being proactive enough in reducing the number and chances of a compromised PC.
Must be great to be a decision maker at Microsoft where whatever choices you take it won't be liked.