The "AutoPilot" thing in OpenOffice Calc is a nice and friendly way to build and edit equations.
I don't think there is equivalent functionality in Excel 2000 (not tried Excel XP so can't comment).
I agree that there are bits of Open/Star Office that need a bit more polish, but these *are* on the way. Everyone complains about the speed issues and I believe these are being addressed.
Also, I believe that some of the enhancements that Ximian made for Ximian office are making their way back to the code trunk, so this should help the interface look less basic.
Its easy to pick holes in things though when you're used to something else such as MS Office. But not only has MS Office had a bit more time to mature, users have likely gotten used to its quirks.
For example (please correct me if I'm wrong - I might be!), in Excel 2000 how do you set the location of the speadsheet templates? As far as I can tell, you set that little piece of information in MS Word - they use a common template folder! That *ucking intuitive isn't it? I mean, they've only had 10+ years to get that right!!;)
I agree broadly with what you're saying, but unless you really make an effort to use an alternative you'll never switch. You'll miss any benefits because you don't look. And you'll continue to be charged more for the "newer version" of the same product.
(5) It included an executable. [??? how did that slip past my ISP??? They normally strip executables.]
Ermmmm, is this a common thing for ISP's to do then?
I'm only asking as I'd be a bit unhappy if my email was being censored for me... but I s'pose it makes sense to most non-tech users. Are you able to switch this option off?
When I was searching a fix for this before I kept finding notes explaining that this hotfix/service pack would fix the problem... but they never do! So I don't hold out much hope for SP4 (not tried it yet).
I think I've had the problem you're describing - I'd saved an image as a PNG and when I viewed it in IE6, the colours were *very* slightly off.
I had saved the image from PaintShopPro 7 - but I don't think the problem was gamma correction in the image since both Opera and Mozilla rendered the image correctly.
I think the problem is simply that IE stuffs up the gamma correction all on its own!
Windows XP *still* ships with MS Paint. People don't notice because they never use it, but open it - look at it - its shite! I really can't understand why MS ships it..... its the most outdated, useless piece of software.
And they should also force MS to enable all versions of Office be able to read OOo native formats! If that is done, then its easy to only use the open format for interchange.
*Then* its much much easier to talk about replacing Office with Star/OpenOffice.
It is pretty good. I've found that old Word documents that I wrote probably using Office 95 actually render better in OOo than in Office 2000.
On the down side, I just recently needed to open a 44Mb PowerPoint presentation - it contained nothing fancy, just a lot of slides with hi-res images. OOo takes f-o-r-e-v-e-r to open the document and requires approx. 512Mb memory to do it! When you re-save in the native format it manages things better though.
Aside from that, I've found odd things like date/time cells in Excel appear using the wrong date/time format in OOo.
And lastly, OOo is slow opening and closing any documents - I click on the Save icon and it will take several seconds to complete even with a small document.
I do really like OOo - it is very good. Somethings I prefer, but overall it needs a little more polish.
I'd have thought that AOL would want to use common software for both Windows and Mac users, so unless MS is prepared to maintain Mac IE (perhaps exclusively to AOL?), then AOL will have to maintain Mozilla or go with IE for Windows and Safari or something else for Mac.
AOL do need something for their Mac users!
This is *total* speculation but perhaps MS reasons that it can't keep up with OSS browsers, so instead will allow third parties to supply their own layout/rendering components instead of the "standard", poorly maintained, IE one.
However, the underlying OS (Windows) still controls the network protocols and any DRM features.
Extending this idea - MS needs to build new business since Windows / Office will dwindle. Equally, media companies (Time Warner) need to control their (alledgedly) dwindling revenues.
DRM would solve both their problems. Plus MS might've realised they need allies, so *perhaps* they're prepared to play nice with AOL.
Does MS care about Windows? If it could create a DRM "standard" that everyone uses then it may not care too much. Certainly, it doesn't make sense for it to spend too much on Windows development. Far better to invest in replacement cash cows.
Now, just to put a pretty pink bow on this whole package, Microsoft decided to pay SCO off to destroy Linux.
I think the SCO thing was largely just to cover themselves - if IBM either lost the case to SCO, or IBM settled with SCO, that would leave MS potentially open to attack from SCO/SCO's new owner.
That might explain this... there used to be a monthly magazine for programmers called EXE (might've been UK only?) and one month the entire magazine was printed wihtout any punctuation.
The best bit was the covering letter than came with it explaining that this happened, but they didn't know what caused it and that by the time they'd reaslised it had been printed that therefore tough shit (not those exact words you understand, but a rough translation).
Funny as hell!
And now you can play them all on your Palm! For some reason though, I don't find text adventures as much fun these days... its just not the same when you don't have to wait 5 minutes for them to load from tape!
The catacombs where freaking me loads anyway, but it really was top that bit where theres a fire burning in this room, you kill off all the other horrors that lurk there and then this figure, on fire, crawls out from the fire itself!
Plus the X-Labs stuff later on is kind of scary too.
Re potential for Outlook crashing, I'm not going to try this but if an outlook user receives an email containing this HTML then as soon as they view the email, Outlook crashes right?
But the email would still be in their Inbox... so the next time they start outlook... oh just rememebered, Outlook Express (not sure about the full Office Outlook version) will not display an email after a crash.
Agreed. I think a big issue could be Outlook being crashed since although most web sites are unlikely to include this code (might be a bit unpopular really), if someone were to spam a million addresses with this code, its likely to cause a lot more damage/lost data.
Did you know that the bit where Billy's dad sings is actually Vincent Gallo's dad?
Can't remember where I heard that though, so it might be crap (my brain retains a lot of that for some reason)!
They are prone to error: forget a '>' and your config's toast. Of course, you could use an xml validator after you're done, but have you noticed the sudden rise in complexity of the work? Remember, this was supposed to be a _simple_ operation.
Yes, they are harder to edit using a text editor, so anything beyond a minor config tweak could result in problems. But:
Thats only if you use a plain text editor. If you used an XML editor then your file is likely to remain at least "valid" (in an XML sense), so...
Garbage in garbage out -- if you mess up bad with either text or XML config files, then things aren't going to work right either way!
Of course, you could use an xml validator after you're done
You could do this. Given a schema, you could use a standard validation tool that could validate each parameter. Or you could just do the same as you presumably do at the minute which is restart the daemon/application and watch for errors!
The difference here is that with XML you *can* do the former but with plain text you can *only* do the latter.
..your assertion regarding the openness of the xml-based formats is debatable..
I never used the word "open" once! I said "accessible" in that you can use a text editor, and these being common currency on all platforms, the XML format presents no barrier to any user.
I know thats the same with a text file -- the point is simply that a new (superior in my view) format could be introduced without being a barrier to people without access to newer tools. Conversely, a binary format for example would present problems for people who did not have access to the appropriate binary editor tool.
Nothing stops a company from concocting an ugly xml schema which they would change every second release in a way that is completely incompatible with previous versions.
That could happen even with a text format, so on its own, I think that arguement is moot! Although you have raised the point that with XML you *can* change the format (as in extend it) and still retain backwards compatibility -- something that is harder to do with plain text formats.
I believe XML should never be at the user end of an user interface
Hmmm, I think maybe the problem here is that I don't think of text editors being part of a UI. Using a text editor is, if you step back and think about it, a really ugly horrible way to modify the behaviour of an application. It gives you no indication of what you should do or how you should do it. It also gives no feedback if you do something correctly or incorrectly.
On the plus side, text editors are ubiquitous, and text based config files are very easily implemented.
Having read back a little on this thread (now look what you made me do!) I can see there are issus with XML files and streams, so using grep as one example isn't going to work so well. I fully understand that if you're used to a bunch of tools that all work perfectly and well then there isn't much incentive to change.
The problem I see with text files is that it is harder to make changes to the file layout (this might not be an issue since many of the daemons they control are stable in an evolutionary sense), and it doesn't scale. By the latter, what I mean is that with text config files you got just that, a bunch of text files with different rules on syntax (albeit very similar). With XML, you could XLink them into one large structure - like LDAP? (I'm guessing here since I know nothing about LDAP!).
Here's a nice example - with an XML config file I could very easily create a form UI (in anything, but take XHTML as an example) and use XForms to relate the UI to the structure of my XML config file.
Thus, with very very little work (it really is too simple), I've created a friendly UI to editing this config file which includes *full* parameter checking.
Slashdot Mirror
The "AutoPilot" thing in OpenOffice Calc is a nice and friendly way to build and edit equations.
;)
I don't think there is equivalent functionality in Excel 2000 (not tried Excel XP so can't comment).
I agree that there are bits of Open/Star Office that need a bit more polish, but these *are* on the way. Everyone complains about the speed issues and I believe these are being addressed.
Also, I believe that some of the enhancements that Ximian made for Ximian office are making their way back to the code trunk, so this should help the interface look less basic.
Its easy to pick holes in things though when you're used to something else such as MS Office. But not only has MS Office had a bit more time to mature, users have likely gotten used to its quirks.
For example (please correct me if I'm wrong - I might be!), in Excel 2000 how do you set the location of the speadsheet templates? As far as I can tell, you set that little piece of information in MS Word - they use a common template folder! That *ucking intuitive isn't it? I mean, they've only had 10+ years to get that right!!
I agree broadly with what you're saying, but unless you really make an effort to use an alternative you'll never switch. You'll miss any benefits because you don't look. And you'll continue to be charged more for the "newer version" of the same product.
(5) It included an executable. [??? how did that slip past my ISP??? They normally strip executables.]
Ermmmm, is this a common thing for ISP's to do then?
I'm only asking as I'd be a bit unhappy if my email was being censored for me... but I s'pose it makes sense to most non-tech users. Are you able to switch this option off?
Ditto here.
When I was searching a fix for this before I kept finding notes explaining that this hotfix/service pack would fix the problem... but they never do! So I don't hold out much hope for SP4 (not tried it yet).
Didn't this bug also exist in NT4?
Is this the feature that allows people to migrate from Netscape 4.x?
I hope it is!
I think I've had the problem you're describing - I'd saved an image as a PNG and when I viewed it in IE6, the colours were *very* slightly off.
I had saved the image from PaintShopPro 7 - but I don't think the problem was gamma correction in the image since both Opera and Mozilla rendered the image correctly.
I think the problem is simply that IE stuffs up the gamma correction all on its own!
Windows XP *still* ships with MS Paint. People don't notice because they never use it, but open it - look at it - its shite! I really can't understand why MS ships it..... its the most outdated, useless piece of software.
Why do they do it?
And they should also force MS to enable all versions of Office be able to read OOo native formats! If that is done, then its easy to only use the open format for interchange.
*Then* its much much easier to talk about replacing Office with Star/OpenOffice.
It is pretty good. I've found that old Word documents that I wrote probably using Office 95 actually render better in OOo than in Office 2000.
On the down side, I just recently needed to open a 44Mb PowerPoint presentation - it contained nothing fancy, just a lot of slides with hi-res images. OOo takes f-o-r-e-v-e-r to open the document and requires approx. 512Mb memory to do it! When you re-save in the native format it manages things better though.
Aside from that, I've found odd things like date/time cells in Excel appear using the wrong date/time format in OOo.
And lastly, OOo is slow opening and closing any documents - I click on the Save icon and it will take several seconds to complete even with a small document.
I do really like OOo - it is very good. Somethings I prefer, but overall it needs a little more polish.
I'd have thought that AOL would want to use common software for both Windows and Mac users, so unless MS is prepared to maintain Mac IE (perhaps exclusively to AOL?), then AOL will have to maintain Mozilla or go with IE for Windows and Safari or something else for Mac.
AOL do need something for their Mac users!
This is *total* speculation but perhaps MS reasons that it can't keep up with OSS browsers, so instead will allow third parties to supply their own layout/rendering components instead of the "standard", poorly maintained, IE one.
However, the underlying OS (Windows) still controls the network protocols and any DRM features.
Extending this idea - MS needs to build new business since Windows / Office will dwindle. Equally, media companies (Time Warner) need to control their (alledgedly) dwindling revenues.
DRM would solve both their problems. Plus MS might've realised they need allies, so *perhaps* they're prepared to play nice with AOL.
Does MS care about Windows? If it could create a DRM "standard" that everyone uses then it may not care too much. Certainly, it doesn't make sense for it to spend too much on Windows development. Far better to invest in replacement cash cows.
Any takers on this idea??
Now, just to put a pretty pink bow on this whole package, Microsoft decided to pay SCO off to destroy Linux.
I think the SCO thing was largely just to cover themselves - if IBM either lost the case to SCO, or IBM settled with SCO, that would leave MS potentially open to attack from SCO/SCO's new owner.
That might explain this... there used to be a monthly magazine for programmers called EXE (might've been UK only?) and one month the entire magazine was printed wihtout any punctuation. The best bit was the covering letter than came with it explaining that this happened, but they didn't know what caused it and that by the time they'd reaslised it had been printed that therefore tough shit (not those exact words you understand, but a rough translation). Funny as hell!
I imagine AOL would rather want a fully integrated product too, so we're bound to get the best of both worlds at some point!
But it seems weird how this version of mozilla is being shamelessly promoted.
I think they're just trying to creat a bit of buzz... it keeps people focused and makes things that bit more exciting! More power to 'em I say!
Regarding easy forging, always remember that MS Excel became the No.1 spreadsheet over Lotus 1-2-3 *because* it was easier to copy.
So what does that tell ya? Eh?!
'cos if they sued, what would they get paid in?! They'd have to sue but ask for the settlement in Euros!
Oh please someone invent scratch'n'sniff money - The Ultimate In Forgery Protection TM.
please!
Plus you can spend them in the UK too apparently... I do live there (I mean here) but I haven't tried spending euro here.
<tangent> Oh yeah, just remembered, they're called *Euro* not *Euros*. Plural and singular are the same!! </tangent>
And now you can play them all on your Palm! For some reason though, I don't find text adventures as much fun these days... its just not the same when you don't have to wait 5 minutes for them to load from tape!
The catacombs where freaking me loads anyway, but it really was top that bit where theres a fire burning in this room, you kill off all the other horrors that lurk there and then this figure, on fire, crawls out from the fire itself!
Plus the X-Labs stuff later on is kind of scary too.
Top game.
Re potential for Outlook crashing, I'm not going to try this but if an outlook user receives an email containing this HTML then as soon as they view the email, Outlook crashes right?
But the email would still be in their Inbox... so the next time they start outlook... oh just rememebered, Outlook Express (not sure about the full Office Outlook version) will not display an email after a crash.
Worrying though!
Agreed. I think a big issue could be Outlook being crashed since although most web sites are unlikely to include this code (might be a bit unpopular really), if someone were to spam a million addresses with this code, its likely to cause a lot more damage/lost data.
Only yesterday I was wishing that someone would find some kind of fatal flaw in Netscape Navigator 4.x to force anyone using it to upgrade!
I was having to make some beautifly crafted, standards compliant HTML/CSS work with the aformentioned thing.
Quick poll: Does anyone here actually use NN4.x ? (apart from for testing which doesn't count)
Why is it not an update to the retail RtCW then?
I'm not complaining though - it just seems odd, given that it probably won't help retail sales!
Sooo gets my vote everytime!
Did you know that the bit where Billy's dad sings is actually Vincent Gallo's dad?
Can't remember where I heard that though, so it might be crap (my brain retains a lot of that for some reason)!
Yes, they are harder to edit using a text editor, so anything beyond a minor config tweak could result in problems. But:
Of course, you could use an xml validator after you're done
..your assertion regarding the openness of the xml-based formats is debatable..
You could do this. Given a schema, you could use a standard validation tool that could validate each parameter. Or you could just do the same as you presumably do at the minute which is restart the daemon/application and watch for errors!
The difference here is that with XML you *can* do the former but with plain text you can *only* do the latter.
I never used the word "open" once! I said "accessible" in that you can use a text editor, and these being common currency on all platforms, the XML format presents no barrier to any user.
I know thats the same with a text file -- the point is simply that a new (superior in my view) format could be introduced without being a barrier to people without access to newer tools. Conversely, a binary format for example would present problems for people who did not have access to the appropriate binary editor tool.
Nothing stops a company from concocting an ugly xml schema which they would change every second release in a way that is completely incompatible with previous versions.
That could happen even with a text format, so on its own, I think that arguement is moot! Although you have raised the point that with XML you *can* change the format (as in extend it) and still retain backwards compatibility -- something that is harder to do with plain text formats.
I believe XML should never be at the user end of an user interface
Hmmm, I think maybe the problem here is that I don't think of text editors being part of a UI. Using a text editor is, if you step back and think about it, a really ugly horrible way to modify the behaviour of an application. It gives you no indication of what you should do or how you should do it. It also gives no feedback if you do something correctly or incorrectly.
On the plus side, text editors are ubiquitous, and text based config files are very easily implemented.
Having read back a little on this thread (now look what you made me do!) I can see there are issus with XML files and streams, so using grep as one example isn't going to work so well. I fully understand that if you're used to a bunch of tools that all work perfectly and well then there isn't much incentive to change.
The problem I see with text files is that it is harder to make changes to the file layout (this might not be an issue since many of the daemons they control are stable in an evolutionary sense), and it doesn't scale. By the latter, what I mean is that with text config files you got just that, a bunch of text files with different rules on syntax (albeit very similar). With XML, you could XLink them into one large structure - like LDAP? (I'm guessing here since I know nothing about LDAP!).
Here's a nice example - with an XML config file I could very easily create a form UI (in anything, but take XHTML as an example) and use XForms to relate the UI to the structure of my XML config file.
Thus, with very very little work (it really is too simple), I've created a friendly UI to editing this config file which includes *full* parameter checking.
There's good points