I personally have no problem with a company wanting to be the "end-all-be-all of the web" as long as they do it in a way that is efficient and useful to the end user. To me, Yahoo's problem is that they seem more concerned with pushing the latest and greatest flashy, irrelevent ads on me that I find the whole experience very annoying and unpleasant. Maybe it's a money-maker for them, but as an end user, I would gladly choose another comparable service if it wasn't so intrusive.
"4. extend your Gmail offering to other people than the limited bunch currently seen"
Maybe when they finally go public with it, but many people seem to be forgetting that it's currently in Beta. Although, I have to admit that I often forget, because it just works, and works so well!
"...then came the toolbar which starts encroaching on the PC/ browser..."
I TOTALLY disagree. First off, the Google Toolbar is a "by choice" download. Nothing forces you to use it.
Second, the Google Toolbar adds functionality to Internet Explorer (and as I understand it, similar functionality is availible as an add-on in some other browsers) that isn't otherwise there...and these are very basic functions. If Microsoft won't implement them, then why not let a third-party fill the gap?
I use the Google Toolbar daily--it's really made IE a much better tool. And Google does it in the "Google way" by keeping it unobtrusive, clean, and useful.
If you use Gmail, you'll see that every e-mail isn't shown as an e-mail, they're shown as conversations. So, if you're trying to click the checkbox next to a conversation then try to forward it, does that mean you want to forward the entire conversation, just the last sent e-mail, or one of the e-mails in between? It's ambiguous.
You can't forward or reply by clicking the checkbox--you must first view the message. If it's a message in a conversation, it, and every LATER message in the conversation will be forwarded. If you want to forward only that message, just click on the "More Options" links and clink on Forward.
It makes more sense to open a conversation displaying each e-mail separately, then allow you to forward individual e-mails.
That's how it functions currently.
Maybe later, they will add functionality to not view your list as conversations and give checkbox forwardability.
Maybe, but it would be a redundent function when you can just open the first message in the conversation to do the same thing. Doean't mean they can't or won't implement it...
1. What are the computers being used for? If they are Public Access, you pretty much only need a web browser and possibly an office suite. As long as they are physically robust enough and can be effectivly secured, you don't necessarily need the latest and greatest hardware.
If they are Internal use, you need to consider what you will be running. For most offices, it means an office suite, a web browser, and maybe some proprietary software. Again, the latest and greatest may not be needed.
2. What are the current conditions? If you have broken computers, then these should be at the top of the list to be fixed or replaced. If you have computers that are working fine and doing the job, then you may not need to replace them.
3. Do you have specific OS requriements? Are you running any proprietary software that is OS or OS-version specific? For example, if you have an accounting package that only runs on Windows 95, your hands may be tied for some of the computers. Can you reduce the cost by moving to Open Source solutions like Linux? Again, if they are publically accessible computers, you need to assess what access and features they will provide.
4. Are all your OS's the same? Can you standardize on one OS and one OS version? It certainly makes management easier if you can keep your OS's to one single type or version. Try to get away from having many "specialized" OS's for different purposes. It'll drive up maintenance costs
I doubt DVD's will become obsolete, but they will probably not be the medium of choice in the future. I could easily see in 10 years more emphasis on things like Video On Demand in the form of and legal, controlled online storefronts. With broadband pipes becoming more prolific and bandwidth speeds ever increasing, the availability of immediadly selectable, downloadable, and viewable content from a variety of sources seems very likely and doable.
In addition, we're soon approaching a point where specific media types could become a moot point. As things like memory cards and various portable and online storage capabilities become cheaper and have significantly larger capacities, the very notion of a specific media type will fade. As long as you can store, access, and transfer the content, the medium really will become irrelevent. And there's really no reason that this could not be done (reletivly) securely in a way that could probably satisfy the various "media organizations". It just requires some innovation to make the "playing" of the content controllable.
"This show might seem ridiculous or riveting.
But it is what we sold and it is what PBS bought. And since this one is truly a labor of love, neither David nor myself wanted it to be redesigned or patched together by anyone else for any reason other than our own whim -- certainly not for what might even appear to be a caving in to temporary political pressures." - Richard Dreyfuss
Then why the hell are you selling it to BROADCAST networks?!? Despite what some may believe we DO have FCC guidelines and standards that broadcasters must to follow. Sounds like more "political puffing" as we grow closer to Election Day in the US...
From about 1989 through 1999, I adminstered several VAXen. The handwriting was on the wall as far back as the late 1990's. With the dismal acceptance of Alpha-based system and the simple fact that Windows and *NIX platforms could provide similar functionality for cheaper, it was inevitable that we had to migrate. Not that they were any "better" but it was hard for IT to justify maintaining a system that 99% of the rest of the world won't touch.
I will say, though, that administering VAXen was very fun and educational. I learned more about IT in the 10 years on-the-job managing VAXen than I ever learned in college or in companies since. Unless you were willing to bring in high-paid technicians, you had to learn everything, program everything, and troubleshoot yourself.
Those were the good ol' days!
Oh, and, contrary to what some folks think, $ is the "real" command prompt!!!
While I definitely agree with your explanation, I still feel like there's an underlying "falseness" to the whole process.
Take, for example, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" which I saw the week it was released back in the late 70's. As many know, the "theater edition" was very different from the "special edition" now available on DVD. OK, I'll concede that my liking the theater edition MAY be due to seeing it first, but the tone and mood of the "theater edition" is very different from the "special edition"--I personally prefer the "theater edition".
Additionally, the "theater edition" is/was the edition that the critics and viewers reviewed and talked about. It was the edition that made the press. It was the edition that won the awards. It was the edition that made the studio its money. Do we now have to have Oscars for after-market releases? (Maybe they do--I rarely watch awards shows anyway.)
And the kicker is that the theater edition (and not just of "Close Encounters") of movies is often not available on DVD, only the "director's cut". These "special" or "director's" editions continue to be available, but the editions that launched it all disappears. While I certainly embrace the ability to see what the director "really wanted" and the extra content is typically worth the price of the DVD, I feel like it's a form of re-writing history.
...that movie studios are filming scenes specifically to cash in on the DVD aftermarket? It used to be that I would go the movie theater to see a movie on "the big screen" to see the film "the way it was meant to be seen." Now, when I go to see a movie in the theater, I feel like I am being cheated because they simply aren't showing the "entire" movie. It's now become a given that DVD's will contain "extra" or "deleted" scenes. At sometimes over $9.00 for tickets, I feel cheated by this.
A colleague of mine said "Well, you're paying the extra money for the extra DVD content." Hmmmm. Shouldn't movies now be marketed as "Movie Theater Edition" or something?
There's a huge difference between "re-tooling" and "re-using" tools. What they are talking about is adding functionality to existing tools. They would have to incur a huge cost to either purchase new tools or retrofit existing tools on existing lines (Obviously, new lines would be treated differently, but we're talking about existing lines here.) The real cost savings is the ability to re-use standardized tools from line to line, year to year.
Well, all I can say is when I log into my free Yahoo Mail account, the first thing I'm confronted with is a large Flash ad covering about 1/4 of the right side of the screen for some investment company. When I view a message, there is a large, animated Flash banner across the top of the screen. When I open an empty folder, I see a HUGE, static ad that takes up almost 1/2 of the screen for some Trip company. So my point is two-fold:
1. Yahoo Mail's ads are totally irrelevent for my needs--almost to the point of being insulting. Trips, Investing, Screensavers, High Speed Internet service. They're all pretty much the same--redundent and annoying. Gmail's ads are at least relevent or related to the message I'm reading.
2. You have to PAY $19.99 in order to eliminate the graphical ads. And I don't know if they still include "text" ads because their "Upgrade" information specifically states "Eliminate Graphical ads". Yes, Gmail includes ads, but they're text and tastefully done.
Yes, for $19.99 per year. Gmail is free. Even if Gmail charged for its service, the ads are not only unobtrusive, but they are often useful. Because they are relevent and targeted to the message content, it's sometimes useful to have instant access to related companies. Persinall, this is how *I* want advertizing. Intrusive, annoying ads like Hotmail and Yahoo Mail are just plain so last century.
It's just another example of technology providing personal choice. For someone like you, a PC or laptop-based answer is the best solution. It sounds like you often (always?) have your laptop with you, so that solution works best for you. For me, an online solution is best because I am rarely at my home PC. Being able to access my personal email from any Web-connected computer is a huge convenience. I don't carry a laptop with me, and I find email on PDA's simply kludgy.
It's really a mindset change. Because there is so much available space, I no longer have to worry about deleting important messages just to free up space. I've imported about 1000 archived messages and have received several emails with very large attachments, and I only have used about 2% of my space.
While 1GB of storage is nice, it's certainly not the only reason I like Gmail. Features like "Search", "Labels", "Conversations", "Keyboard Shortcuts", and a lightning-fast interface help leverage the 1GB of storage enabling me to easily and quickly find and manage my email information in ways I never could.
Also, and sometimes more importantly, Gmail's ads are so unobtrusive and relevent that implementations like Hotmail and Yahoo Mail seem like complete jokes with their flashy, intrusive, irrelevent ads.
Great. Now how will we fight the Robots...
on
Amorphous Steel
·
· Score: 1
...when they build themselves with this stuff?!?
Re:Stampede at the Patent Office
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
not only would I not have to pay child support, but I could sue her for licensing fees on the "product" (or else require her to "remove" it, at her own expense, but let's not go there).
Well, that all depends on if the "planting" was forced, (she didn't want your "seed") consentual (you both agreed to the "seeding") or unintentional (you were asleep when the "seeding" tool place.)
Hasn't the (typically unsuccessful) goal of most males in the tech world been to try to attract females? The problem is that the females simply aren't responding!
2GB vs 1GB of storage space at this time really isn't a big deal. I have over 1000 archived emails imported into Gmail, and it takes up only about 2% of my 1GB space. By the time I even come close to approaching that limit, they'' probably offer more space anyway.
Besides, Yahoo's "free" account still bombards you with incredibly intrusive, irrelevent, and annoying ads. Gmail's ads are unintrusive, relevent, and innocuous.
No one feature really stands out, but Gmail's Search, Labels, Conversations, Filters, and fast interface work in concert to leverage the 1GB of storage making it an excellent way to find and manage your email information online.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally have no problem with a company wanting to be the "end-all-be-all of the web" as long as they do it in a way that is efficient and useful to the end user. To me, Yahoo's problem is that they seem more concerned with pushing the latest and greatest flashy, irrelevent ads on me that I find the whole experience very annoying and unpleasant. Maybe it's a money-maker for them, but as an end user, I would gladly choose another comparable service if it wasn't so intrusive.
I TOTALLY disagree. First off, the Google Toolbar is a "by choice" download. Nothing forces you to use it.
Second, the Google Toolbar adds functionality to Internet Explorer (and as I understand it, similar functionality is availible as an add-on in some other browsers) that isn't otherwise there...and these are very basic functions. If Microsoft won't implement them, then why not let a third-party fill the gap?
I use the Google Toolbar daily--it's really made IE a much better tool. And Google does it in the "Google way" by keeping it unobtrusive, clean, and useful.
You can't forward or reply by clicking the checkbox--you must first view the message. If it's a message in a conversation, it, and every LATER message in the conversation will be forwarded. If you want to forward only that message, just click on the "More Options" links and clink on Forward.
That's how it functions currently.
Maybe, but it would be a redundent function when you can just open the first message in the conversation to do the same thing. Doean't mean they can't or won't implement it...
See GmailTips.com for more Gmail Tips
1. What are the computers being used for?
If they are Public Access, you pretty much only need a web browser and possibly an office suite. As long as they are physically robust enough and can be effectivly secured, you don't necessarily need the latest and greatest hardware.
If they are Internal use, you need to consider what you will be running. For most offices, it means an office suite, a web browser, and maybe some proprietary software. Again, the latest and greatest may not be needed.
2. What are the current conditions?
If you have broken computers, then these should be at the top of the list to be fixed or replaced. If you have computers that are working fine and doing the job, then you may not need to replace them.
3. Do you have specific OS requriements?
Are you running any proprietary software that is OS or OS-version specific? For example, if you have an accounting package that only runs on Windows 95, your hands may be tied for some of the computers. Can you reduce the cost by moving to Open Source solutions like Linux? Again, if they are publically accessible computers, you need to assess what access and features they will provide.
4. Are all your OS's the same?
Can you standardize on one OS and one OS version? It certainly makes management easier if you can keep your OS's to one single type or version. Try to get away from having many "specialized" OS's for different purposes. It'll drive up maintenance costs
I doubt DVD's will become obsolete, but they will probably not be the medium of choice in the future. I could easily see in 10 years more emphasis on things like Video On Demand in the form of and legal, controlled online storefronts. With broadband pipes becoming more prolific and bandwidth speeds ever increasing, the availability of immediadly selectable, downloadable, and viewable content from a variety of sources seems very likely and doable.
In addition, we're soon approaching a point where specific media types could become a moot point. As things like memory cards and various portable and online storage capabilities become cheaper and have significantly larger capacities, the very notion of a specific media type will fade. As long as you can store, access, and transfer the content, the medium really will become irrelevent. And there's really no reason that this could not be done (reletivly) securely in a way that could probably satisfy the various "media organizations". It just requires some innovation to make the "playing" of the content controllable.
From about 1989 through 1999, I adminstered several VAXen. The handwriting was on the wall as far back as the late 1990's. With the dismal acceptance of Alpha-based system and the simple fact that Windows and *NIX platforms could provide similar functionality for cheaper, it was inevitable that we had to migrate. Not that they were any "better" but it was hard for IT to justify maintaining a system that 99% of the rest of the world won't touch.
I will say, though, that administering VAXen was very fun and educational. I learned more about IT in the 10 years on-the-job managing VAXen than I ever learned in college or in companies since. Unless you were willing to bring in high-paid technicians, you had to learn everything, program everything, and troubleshoot yourself.
Those were the good ol' days!
Oh, and, contrary to what some folks think, $ is the "real" command prompt!!!
...include the words "programmer" and "coffee" in an article and it MUST tech-related. C'mon, it must be a slow news day.
His Fantasy Fictions works, particularly, his "Elric" series, with their innovative "Multiverse" theme challenged me greatly in my formative years.
I hear the RIAA has some pretty interesting databases. Obtaining them might be challenging, though...
While I definitely agree with your explanation, I still feel like there's an underlying "falseness" to the whole process.
Take, for example, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" which I saw the week it was released back in the late 70's. As many know, the "theater edition" was very different from the "special edition" now available on DVD. OK, I'll concede that my liking the theater edition MAY be due to seeing it first, but the tone and mood of the "theater edition" is very different from the "special edition"--I personally prefer the "theater edition".
Additionally, the "theater edition" is/was the edition that the critics and viewers reviewed and talked about. It was the edition that made the press. It was the edition that won the awards. It was the edition that made the studio its money. Do we now have to have Oscars for after-market releases? (Maybe they do--I rarely watch awards shows anyway.)
And the kicker is that the theater edition (and not just of "Close Encounters") of movies is often not available on DVD, only the "director's cut". These "special" or "director's" editions continue to be available, but the editions that launched it all disappears. While I certainly embrace the ability to see what the director "really wanted" and the extra content is typically worth the price of the DVD, I feel like it's a form of re-writing history.
...that movie studios are filming scenes specifically to cash in on the DVD aftermarket? It used to be that I would go the movie theater to see a movie on "the big screen" to see the film "the way it was meant to be seen." Now, when I go to see a movie in the theater, I feel like I am being cheated because they simply aren't showing the "entire" movie. It's now become a given that DVD's will contain "extra" or "deleted" scenes. At sometimes over $9.00 for tickets, I feel cheated by this.
A colleague of mine said "Well, you're paying the extra money for the extra DVD content." Hmmmm. Shouldn't movies now be marketed as "Movie Theater Edition" or something?
...damn, my dyslexia!
There's a huge difference between "re-tooling" and "re-using" tools. What they are talking about is adding functionality to existing tools. They would have to incur a huge cost to either purchase new tools or retrofit existing tools on existing lines (Obviously, new lines would be treated differently, but we're talking about existing lines here.) The real cost savings is the ability to re-use standardized tools from line to line, year to year.
Well, all I can say is when I log into my free Yahoo Mail account, the first thing I'm confronted with is a large Flash ad covering about 1/4 of the right side of the screen for some investment company. When I view a message, there is a large, animated Flash banner across the top of the screen. When I open an empty folder, I see a HUGE, static ad that takes up almost 1/2 of the screen for some Trip company. So my point is two-fold:
1. Yahoo Mail's ads are totally irrelevent for my needs--almost to the point of being insulting. Trips, Investing, Screensavers, High Speed Internet service. They're all pretty much the same--redundent and annoying. Gmail's ads are at least relevent or related to the message I'm reading.
2. You have to PAY $19.99 in order to eliminate the graphical ads. And I don't know if they still include "text" ads because their "Upgrade" information specifically states "Eliminate Graphical ads". Yes, Gmail includes ads, but they're text and tastefully done.
Yes, for $19.99 per year. Gmail is free. Even if Gmail charged for its service, the ads are not only unobtrusive, but they are often useful. Because they are relevent and targeted to the message content, it's sometimes useful to have instant access to related companies. Persinall, this is how *I* want advertizing. Intrusive, annoying ads like Hotmail and Yahoo Mail are just plain so last century.
It's just another example of technology providing personal choice. For someone like you, a PC or laptop-based answer is the best solution. It sounds like you often (always?) have your laptop with you, so that solution works best for you. For me, an online solution is best because I am rarely at my home PC. Being able to access my personal email from any Web-connected computer is a huge convenience. I don't carry a laptop with me, and I find email on PDA's simply kludgy.
It's really a mindset change. Because there is so much available space, I no longer have to worry about deleting important messages just to free up space. I've imported about 1000 archived messages and have received several emails with very large attachments, and I only have used about 2% of my space.
While 1GB of storage is nice, it's certainly not the only reason I like Gmail. Features like "Search", "Labels", "Conversations", "Keyboard Shortcuts", and a lightning-fast interface help leverage the 1GB of storage enabling me to easily and quickly find and manage my email information in ways I never could.
Also, and sometimes more importantly, Gmail's ads are so unobtrusive and relevent that implementations like Hotmail and Yahoo Mail seem like complete jokes with their flashy, intrusive, irrelevent ads.
...when they build themselves with this stuff?!?
Hasn't the (typically unsuccessful) goal of most males in the tech world been to try to attract females? The problem is that the females simply aren't responding!
2GB vs 1GB of storage space at this time really isn't a big deal. I have over 1000 archived emails imported into Gmail, and it takes up only about 2% of my 1GB space. By the time I even come close to approaching that limit, they'' probably offer more space anyway.
Besides, Yahoo's "free" account still bombards you with incredibly intrusive, irrelevent, and annoying ads. Gmail's ads are unintrusive, relevent, and innocuous.
No one feature really stands out, but Gmail's Search, Labels, Conversations, Filters, and fast interface work in concert to leverage the 1GB of storage making it an excellent way to find and manage your email information online.