Yeah, especially since most local storage these days are appliances that pretty much manage themselves. And there's that physical access part of security -- if it's locked in your machine room with no path to the outside world, it's a lot harder to steal your data.
True, what a company is doing now is the most important, but their past decisions come to haunt them in two ways: 1) the code they have to support, and 2) the perception of the user community. (Example: Comcast renaming their internet service to try to escape the bad karma associated with their name.) As a web designer I'm saying that the proliferation of past versions of Internet Explorer is responsible for more non-standard, broken, crap code on the internet than probably any other single factor. Microsoft not only has to deal with that design legacy, they also have to deal with that negative mindshare. A clean break, perhaps a completely new name and code base, would not only divest themselves from the horrors of the past, but also be a signal to the user community that they're serious about joining the web community instead of trying to use non-standard web access to drive sales of Windows. Because that is clearly not working anymore. Like many corporations, we have a few legacy apps that require Windows 7, but we haven't been designing to IE for a very long time, and the first question the helpdesk asks is "have you tried it in Firefox?"
What they're actually doing is one thing. But perception is key.
Another thing they have to contend with, is that the best they can do in a true standards-based environment is to be equal to their competitors (firefox, chrome, opera, safari) and in the best of scenarios, users are going to ask "I'm doing fine on Firefox (or Chrome, or Opera) why should I go back to IE?" Personally, I don't trust IE to behave, because of Microsoft's past history of doing non-standard things.
Your pad has more than enough grunt to run a complete office suite. I would ask, what is the point of having to carry around a macbook *and* an iPad? Bragging rights?
Personally I never believed in the alpha geek thing. Each device I carried had a specific purpose, and I longed for the day when I could do everything from a single portable device. It's almost possible now. My boss can mail me a PPT file, I can open it in my phone, not even a tablet, connect directly to the projector and do a presentation. I can do enough work from my phone that I rarely carry a laptop anymore. I've held off on a tablet because I'm waiting for the day when I can carry it *instead* of a laptop, and maybe, with a bluetooth headset, instead of a phone -- making it my only device.
Office on the tablet is a big step forward. But! It has to be designed to work in a reasonable fashion with a touch interface. If they do it like our Windows 7 tablet currently, where you have to do strange gestures to emulate the actions of a three button mouse, it's a giant fail.
Exec responsible for Office sales: "An ipad port has the potential to send Office sales through the roof, especially if we price it reasonable enough to insure significant penetration."
Exec responsible for Windows sales: "Office is one of the driving factors in Windows sales."
Balmer: "No Office on the ipad. We will use it to drive sales of Windows 8 tablets."
Exec responsible for Office sales: "With all due respect, the company needs a product line to rely on once Windows declines. This could be a big opportunity to be relevant this decade."
I understand, but this is the fallout of making really bad decisions in the early years. Have you ever looked at the code Frontpage generates? In 2004/2005 I made a small business out of cleaning the cruft out of websites and making them more browser neutral.
I did some A/B testing, and you're right, it's work that's the problem. Probably a proxy setting or something. Odd that the other browsers are fine, and they have to go through the same proxy service.
I recently brought up IE9 at home (and at work -- don't tell anyone; it's not supported yet) and there are things I like -- they got rid of a lot of the frame cruft which takes up space on small (netbook) displays. It starts faster (hello Mozilla are you LISTENING) and seems to render adequately. My main problem is that it takes significant time to start a new tab. I get "connecting...." for an unreasonable amount of time. I mean, it's just STARTING A NEW TAB, it's not trying to hit a website in Siberia. (Is it?)
An example? Trivial: OSX. Windows NT. And those were whole operating systems, not just some dumb browser.
It doesn't have to ship on time, it has to ship soon enough. Netscape screwed around and second guessed themselves and reversed course, and ended up getting nowhere. It wasn't specifically the decision to rewrite that killed them, it was the way they went about it.
I thought it was decided that the iPhone was first and foremost a network device, and just incidentally a phone. At least, that's what many owners are telling me now, so they all seem to have gotten the same memo.
If the iPhone is not primarily a phone, it could be argued that some issues in that area are to be expected. Apple should have stuck it out and established a precedent.
You are, surely, aware that *both* Firefox and Chrome are based on rendering engines well over a decade old?
Software doesn't inherently get bulkier over the years. It can be slimmed down, if its maintainers decide to do so. Firefox has been making a serious effort at this.
It's funny you propose a rewrite from scratch of IE, when jwz infamously concluded that the attempt at a full rewrite is what killed Netscape.
Sigh. This has already been covered, but let's summarize: (a) I argue that Firefox *is* already feeling its age. It's gotten huge and clunky and it annoys me. For just one example, every time I start it I have to wait for it to update again before it loads the first page. That's profoundly stupid. Why not have it update on dismissal, a time when I'm less likely to be in a hurry to do something? (b) For whatever reason, Chrome demonstrably renders faster. When you do a lot of your work on the web, speed is significant. (c) I'm told incessantly that Firefox is making an effort to slim down. I still have the latest version on my machines, and I occasionally use it because I haven't migrated some of my older bookmarks to Chrome. My perception continues to be that operationally, the only thing that's changed is the version number. Every single time I start it. Which I have to wait for. Which pisses me off. (d) It's funny only if you have no business experience. Just because someone did something wrong, doesn't mean it can't be done right. The decision to rewrite wasn't what killed Netscape. Indecisiveness, second-guessing, bad management, and lack of follow-through is what killed them. Although I'm not a Machead, I'd like to point out that Apple completely rewrote their operating system, not just a stupid browser, and they seem to be doing ok.
Have you actually tried Firefox since you switched?
Whenever I mention that I switched to Chrome in this forum, some anonymous person asks me that. Usually they say that Firefox has gotten "a lot better" and that I should "give it another try". So are you all Mozilla developers or something?
I have the latest Firefox right here. I still use it occasionally because I haven't migrated all my bookmarks to Chrome. And it remains obvious in A/B comparisons that Firefox renders slower and allocates monstrous amounts of memory. Not to mention that I usually have to wait for it to update when I start it, which increases the time it takes to load the first page. (Who's idea was that? I'm sure some engineer thought that was the cat's pajamas, but it pisses off your customers on a regular basis, not what you want in a "feature". Why don't you have Firefox do its housekeeping on dismissal rather than startup?) So yes, I periodically go back to Firefox for some minor stuff and my perception is that the only thing that's changed recently is the version number. Often.
But continuing in this vein, why should a customer "actually try Firefox since [they] switched"? If Chrome is doing what they need, what's the point? We're not all browser developers or browser advocates here. To most of us, a browser is a tool to get work done, not a subject on which to prosthelytize. I don't CARE that Firefox has a newer and better and more nifty version, because life is too short to spend it evaluating browsers.
I think the difference is that Chrome spawns separate processes instead of one big-ol-thang like Firefox. My computers seem to like multiple relatively large processes more than one gigantic process, even if the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, especially since most local storage these days are appliances that pretty much manage themselves. And there's that physical access part of security -- if it's locked in your machine room with no path to the outside world, it's a lot harder to steal your data.
Where have you been the last 15 years?
True, what a company is doing now is the most important, but their past decisions come to haunt them in two ways: 1) the code they have to support, and 2) the perception of the user community. (Example: Comcast renaming their internet service to try to escape the bad karma associated with their name.) As a web designer I'm saying that the proliferation of past versions of Internet Explorer is responsible for more non-standard, broken, crap code on the internet than probably any other single factor. Microsoft not only has to deal with that design legacy, they also have to deal with that negative mindshare. A clean break, perhaps a completely new name and code base, would not only divest themselves from the horrors of the past, but also be a signal to the user community that they're serious about joining the web community instead of trying to use non-standard web access to drive sales of Windows. Because that is clearly not working anymore. Like many corporations, we have a few legacy apps that require Windows 7, but we haven't been designing to IE for a very long time, and the first question the helpdesk asks is "have you tried it in Firefox?"
What they're actually doing is one thing. But perception is key.
Another thing they have to contend with, is that the best they can do in a true standards-based environment is to be equal to their competitors (firefox, chrome, opera, safari) and in the best of scenarios, users are going to ask "I'm doing fine on Firefox (or Chrome, or Opera) why should I go back to IE?" Personally, I don't trust IE to behave, because of Microsoft's past history of doing non-standard things.
The point is to only have to carry one device!
Your pad has more than enough grunt to run a complete office suite. I would ask, what is the point of having to carry around a macbook *and* an iPad? Bragging rights?
Personally I never believed in the alpha geek thing. Each device I carried had a specific purpose, and I longed for the day when I could do everything from a single portable device. It's almost possible now. My boss can mail me a PPT file, I can open it in my phone, not even a tablet, connect directly to the projector and do a presentation. I can do enough work from my phone that I rarely carry a laptop anymore. I've held off on a tablet because I'm waiting for the day when I can carry it *instead* of a laptop, and maybe, with a bluetooth headset, instead of a phone -- making it my only device.
Office on the tablet is a big step forward. But! It has to be designed to work in a reasonable fashion with a touch interface. If they do it like our Windows 7 tablet currently, where you have to do strange gestures to emulate the actions of a three button mouse, it's a giant fail.
Exec responsible for Office sales: "An ipad port has the potential to send Office sales through the roof, especially if we price it reasonable enough to insure significant penetration."
Exec responsible for Windows sales: "Office is one of the driving factors in Windows sales."
Balmer: "No Office on the ipad. We will use it to drive sales of Windows 8 tablets."
Exec responsible for Office sales: "With all due respect, the company needs a product line to rely on once Windows declines. This could be a big opportunity to be relevant this decade."
Balmer: Throws a chair.
I understand, but this is the fallout of making really bad decisions in the early years. Have you ever looked at the code Frontpage generates? In 2004/2005 I made a small business out of cleaning the cruft out of websites and making them more browser neutral.
I did some A/B testing, and you're right, it's work that's the problem. Probably a proxy setting or something. Odd that the other browsers are fine, and they have to go through the same proxy service.
I recently brought up IE9 at home (and at work -- don't tell anyone; it's not supported yet) and there are things I like -- they got rid of a lot of the frame cruft which takes up space on small (netbook) displays. It starts faster (hello Mozilla are you LISTENING) and seems to render adequately. My main problem is that it takes significant time to start a new tab. I get "connecting...." for an unreasonable amount of time. I mean, it's just STARTING A NEW TAB, it's not trying to hit a website in Siberia. (Is it?)
It's worth a try. I believe the only thing at risk is the filing fee.
Most owners were going to replace it when the next one came out anyway.
An example? Trivial: OSX. Windows NT. And those were whole operating systems, not just some dumb browser.
It doesn't have to ship on time, it has to ship soon enough. Netscape screwed around and second guessed themselves and reversed course, and ended up getting nowhere. It wasn't specifically the decision to rewrite that killed them, it was the way they went about it.
Good point. "iNetworkDevice" doesn't have the same ring. Get it? Ring? Hello, is anyone out there?
Agreed. I think he should have thrown the whole iphone out the window.
I thought it was decided that the iPhone was first and foremost a network device, and just incidentally a phone. At least, that's what many owners are telling me now, so they all seem to have gotten the same memo.
If the iPhone is not primarily a phone, it could be argued that some issues in that area are to be expected. Apple should have stuck it out and established a precedent.
Agreed, and that's what's going to kill them. Deservedly.
You are, surely, aware that *both* Firefox and Chrome are based on rendering engines well over a decade old?
Software doesn't inherently get bulkier over the years. It can be slimmed down, if its maintainers decide to do so. Firefox has been making a serious effort at this.
It's funny you propose a rewrite from scratch of IE, when jwz infamously concluded that the attempt at a full rewrite is what killed Netscape.
Sigh. This has already been covered, but let's summarize: (a) I argue that Firefox *is* already feeling its age. It's gotten huge and clunky and it annoys me. For just one example, every time I start it I have to wait for it to update again before it loads the first page. That's profoundly stupid. Why not have it update on dismissal, a time when I'm less likely to be in a hurry to do something? (b) For whatever reason, Chrome demonstrably renders faster. When you do a lot of your work on the web, speed is significant. (c) I'm told incessantly that Firefox is making an effort to slim down. I still have the latest version on my machines, and I occasionally use it because I haven't migrated some of my older bookmarks to Chrome. My perception continues to be that operationally, the only thing that's changed is the version number. Every single time I start it. Which I have to wait for. Which pisses me off. (d) It's funny only if you have no business experience. Just because someone did something wrong, doesn't mean it can't be done right. The decision to rewrite wasn't what killed Netscape. Indecisiveness, second-guessing, bad management, and lack of follow-through is what killed them. Although I'm not a Machead, I'd like to point out that Apple completely rewrote their operating system, not just a stupid browser, and they seem to be doing ok.
Have you actually tried Firefox since you switched?
Whenever I mention that I switched to Chrome in this forum, some anonymous person asks me that. Usually they say that Firefox has gotten "a lot better" and that I should "give it another try". So are you all Mozilla developers or something?
I have the latest Firefox right here. I still use it occasionally because I haven't migrated all my bookmarks to Chrome. And it remains obvious in A/B comparisons that Firefox renders slower and allocates monstrous amounts of memory. Not to mention that I usually have to wait for it to update when I start it, which increases the time it takes to load the first page. (Who's idea was that? I'm sure some engineer thought that was the cat's pajamas, but it pisses off your customers on a regular basis, not what you want in a "feature". Why don't you have Firefox do its housekeeping on dismissal rather than startup?) So yes, I periodically go back to Firefox for some minor stuff and my perception is that the only thing that's changed recently is the version number. Often.
But continuing in this vein, why should a customer "actually try Firefox since [they] switched"? If Chrome is doing what they need, what's the point? We're not all browser developers or browser advocates here. To most of us, a browser is a tool to get work done, not a subject on which to prosthelytize. I don't CARE that Firefox has a newer and better and more nifty version, because life is too short to spend it evaluating browsers.
That someone did it wrong doesn't mean that it should never be done.
Well, also, that was eleven years ago...
Good point. Microsoft's worst enemy is their former selves.
I think the difference is that Chrome spawns separate processes instead of one big-ol-thang like Firefox. My computers seem to like multiple relatively large processes more than one gigantic process, even if the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
Well, yes. The whole internet thing was still on the steep end of the curve back then.
I volunteer my back yard.
Why doesn't IBM purchase and dismantle SCO? It might ultimately be cheaper and less time consuming than letting this crap drag on.